Adams

1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6 SAN JOSE DIVISION

7

8 LORENZO ADAMS, Case No. 5:25-cv-05020-EJD

9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS

10 v.

11 GOOGLE LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 10

Defendant.

12

13 Pro se Plaintiff Lorenzo Adams (“Adams”) brings this action against Defendant Google

14 LLC (“Google”) alleging that Google terminated his YouTube account in violation of the parties’

15 Terms of Service (“Terms”). Compl., ECF No. 1-1. Before the Court is Google’s motion to

16 dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Mot., ECF No. 10. Google argues

17 that Adams’s claims are barred under the doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion. Id.

18 This motion is fully briefed. Opp’n, ECF No. 13; Reply, ECF No. 19.

19 After careful review of the relevant documents, the Court finds this matter suitable for

20 decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b). For the reasons explained below,

21 the Court GRANTS Google’s motion to dismiss without leave to amend.

22 I. BACKGROUND

23 On December 27, 2024, Adams filed a complaint with the Small Claims Court against

24 Google, alleging that “YouTube suspended [his] channel without identifying the specific URL

25 allegedly in violation of their Terms of Service.” Small Claims Complaint, ECF No. 10-3, at 3;

26 Summary of Key Facts, ECF No. 10-2, at 83. Adams alleged that he owned a YouTube channel

27 called NerdBallerTV, and he earned an income from this channel through sponsorships. Summary

1 of Key Facts, ECF No. 10-2, at 83. YouTube cancelled Adams’s account after issuing him three

2 strikes for violating its Community Guidelines, pursuant to its three-strike policy. Id. The final

3 strike was issued on March 11, 2024. Id. In the past, Adams had successfully appealed eleven

4 prior strikes by arguing that the content in the URL cited in the strike notice did not actually

5 violate YouTube’s policies. Id. But here, the second and third strikes did not include the URL to

6 the post that allegedly violated the policies, so Adams could not meaningfully challenge the

7 strikes. Id. Adams tried to resolve the issue with appeals and in person communication at Google

8 offices, but he could not reach a resolution. Small Claims Complaint, ECF No. 10-3, at 4. Adams

9 alleged that he lost approximately $200,000 in income from YouTube’s cancellation of

10 NerdBallerTV, but he sought only $12,500, the maximum amount allowed in Small Claims Court.

11 Id. On March 19, 2025, the Small Claims Court entered a final judgment on the merits against

12 Adams, stating that Google “complied with its Terms of Service when it permanently suspended

13 [Adams’s] channel.” Small Claims Judgment, ECF No. 10-3.

14 Approximately three months later, Adams filed this case, alleging the same facts. See

15 Compl. Adams alleges here that Google improperly terminated his YouTube channel

16 NerdBallerTV in violation of the Terms. Id. His complaint describes receiving three strikes on

17 December 26, 2023, February 5, 2024, and March 11, 2024, for allegedly violating the

18 Community Guideline’s sex and nudity policy. Id. Adams similarly alleges that two of the strikes

19 did not include the URLs, so he could not correct the issue with YouTube prior to his termination.

20 Id. Adams now seeks $100,000 in financial damages for lost sponsorships resulting from the

21 termination of his account, alleging that these facts give rise to four causes of action: breach of the

22 implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; negligent enforcement and misrepresentation;

23 wrongful termination; and financial damages from business interruption. Id.

24 II. LEGAL STANDARD

25 “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,

26 accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

27 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A plaintiff

1 must “plead[ ] factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the

2 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,” which requires “more than a sheer possibility that

3 a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. The Court must “accept factual allegations in the

4 complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”

5 Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). However,

6 courts “are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Iqbal,

7 556 U.S. at 678.

8 Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers.

9 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106

10 (1976)). But still, even pro se pleadings “must meet some minimum threshold in providing a

11 defendant with notice of what it is that it allegedly did wrong” and how they are entitled to relief.

12 Brazil v. U.S. Dep’t of Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995).

13 If the court concludes that a Rule 12(b)(6) motion should be granted, the “court should

14 grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that

15 the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203

16 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (quotation omitted).

17 III. DISCUSSION

18 The Court finds that Adams’s claims are precluded under the doctrines of claim preclusion

19 and issue preclusion.

20 Claim preclusion under federal law applies when three elements are met: “(1) an identity of

21 claims, (2) a final judgment on the merits, and (3) privity between parties.” Tahoe-Sierra Pres.

22 Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Plan. Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation

23 marks omitted) (quoting Stratosphere Litig. L.L.C. v. Grand Casinos, Inc., 298 F.3d 1137, 1143 n.

24 3 (9th Cir. 2002)).

25 The Court finds all three elements satisfied here. First, “[i]dentity of claims exists when

26 two suits arise from ‘the same transactional nucleus of facts.’” Id. at 1078. This includes any

27 claims that “could have been brought” in the action, regardless of whether they “were actually

1 pursued.” U.S. ex rel. Barajas v. Northrop Corp., 147 F.3d 905, 909 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court

2 finds that Adams’s complaints both here and in the Small Claims Court arise from the same

3 transactional nucleus of facts—both cases concern the termination of Adams’s NerdBallerTV

4 channel based on the same three strikes. Second, the Small Claims Court issued a final judgment

5 on the merits, and Small Claims Court judgments have the same preclusive effect as any other

6 California judgment. Pitzen v. Superior Ct., 120 Cal. App. 4th 1374, 1381 (2004) (“It is well

7 established that the claim preclusion aspect of the doctrine of res judicata applies to small claims

8 judgments.”). Third, the parties are more than privy—they are identical.

9 Issue preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel, “is designed to bar[ ] successive

10 litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination.”

11 Paulo v. Holder, 669 F.3d 911, 918 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The party

12 asserting issue preclusion must demonstrate: (1) the issue at stake was identical in both

13 proceedings; (2) the issue was actually litigated and decided in the prior proceedings; (3) there was

14 a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue; and (4) the issue was necessary to decide the

15 merits.” See Howard v. City of Coos Bay, 871 F.3d 1032, 1041 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation

16 marks omitted).

17 The Court also finds all four elements of issue preclusion satisfied. First, the issue at stake

18 is the same in both proceedings—whether YouTube’s termination of NerdBallerTV violated its

19 Terms. Second, this issue was actually litigated in Small Claims Court and decided on the merits.

20 See Pitzen, 120 Cal. App. 4th, at 1386 (discussing small claims court judgments and issue

21 preclusion). Third, there are no arguments that there was not a full and fair opportunity to litigate

22 the issue in the Small Claims Court. 1 And finally, the issue was necessary to decide the merits of

23 that case.

24

25

1 Adams only argues in his opposition that he alleges facts sufficient to state claims for breach of

26 the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent enforcement and misrepresentation,

wrongful termination, and financial damages from business interruption. Because the Court finds

27 Adams’s claims barred under the doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion, the Court

need not reach these arguments.

1 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Google’s motion to dismiss. Given that Adams’s claims

2 are barred under the doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion, the Court finds that “the

3 pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127.

4 || The Court therefore dismisses this case without leave to amend.

5 || IV. CONCLUSION

6 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Google’s motion to dismiss. The Clerk of

7 Court shall close this matter.

8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 Dated: October 20, 2025

10

11

EDWARD J. DAVILA

12 United States District Judge

©

15

16

= 17

Z 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 || Case No.: 5:25-cv-05020-EJD

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS