# Patricia Baker v. Google LLC

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · March 14, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10823145

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** March 14, 2025
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10823145

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- observing that, at the pleadings stage, a court need not accept as true allegations that “contradict exhibits to the complaint”

## Opinion text

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 24-7115 September Term, 2024
1:23-cv-02013-CKK
Filed On: March 14, 2025
Patricia L. Baker,

Appellant

v.

Google LLC,

Appellee

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Childs, Pan, and Garcia, Circuit Judges

JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P.
34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s July 26, 2024 order be
affirmed on the ground that appellant’s complaint failed to state a claim. Appellant
failed to allege sufficient facts to state plausible claims for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To start, the documents attached to appellant’s complaint
show that appellee disabled her Google account due to the alleged presence of
offending content on her YouTube channel, not in her Gmail account. This calls into
question the factual premise of each of appellant’s claims. See Kaempe v. Myers,
367 F.3d 958, 963 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (observing that, at the pleadings stage, a court need
not accept as true allegations that “contradict exhibits to the complaint”). In any event,
appellant’s claims fail on their own terms.

First, the district court correctly concluded that appellant did not adequately
plead a claim for breach of contract. Under California law, which appellant does not
dispute applies in this case, appellant did not sufficiently allege that appellee was
contractually precluded from disabling her Gmail account. See McKell v. Wash. Mut.,
Inc., 49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 227, 253 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (observing that a plaintiff must
identify the relevant terms of the contract, or at least allege the substance of those
terms); Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Ass’n, 723 P.2d 573, 586 (Cal. 1986)
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 24-7115 September Term, 2024

(affirming dismissal of breach-of-contract claim where plaintiff did “not allege that any
provision in any of the writings imposed such an obligation on defendant”). Appellant’s
theory on appeal that appellee breached its terms of service by disabling her account
without first proving that she had violated the terms of service is forfeited because
appellant did not press that theory in district court. See Keepseagle v. Perdue,
856 F.3d 1039, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

Second, the district court correctly concluded that appellant’s complaint did not
adequately plead claims for fraud or intentional infliction of emotional distress. See
Lazar v. Superior Court, 909 P.2d 981, 984 (Cal. 1996) (listing the elements of a fraud
claim); Hughes v. Pair, 209 P.3d 963, 976 (Cal. 2009) (same for intentional infliction of
emotional distress).

Third, appellant does not address the district court’s conclusion that appellee is
not a government actor and therefore cannot be held liable for alleged constitutional
violations. Consequently, appellant has forfeited any challenge to that conclusion. See
United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

Appellant’s remaining arguments on appeal show no error in the district court’s
conclusion that her complaint failed to state a claim.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk
is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution
of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.
P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

Page 2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10823145. Public record. Not legal advice.