# Sifuentes

> District Court, N.D. California · May 19, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11374353

## Case

- **Full name:** David Angel Sifuentes v. Google, LLC
- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** May 19, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **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/11374353

## Opinion text

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4 DAVID ANGEL SIFUENTES, Case No. 25-cv-09666-JD

5 Plaintiff,
ORDER RE REPORT AND
6 v. RECOMMENDATION AND
DISMISSAL
7 GOOGLE, LLC

Defendant.
8

9 Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero filed a report recommending dismissal of pro se plaintiff
10 David Angel Sifuentes’ complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a
11 claim upon which relief may be granted. Dkt. No. 13. Sifuentes timely objected to that report and
12 recommendation, Dkt. No. 15, and also filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, Dkt.
13 No. 16, and an amended complaint, Dkt. No. 17.
14 After independently reviewing the report and recommendation, it is adopted in full, and
15 Sifuentes’ objections are denied. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the prior
16 complaint with leave to amend, and so the amended complaint is deemed filed. The amended
17 complaint did not overcome the shortfalls identified in the report and recommendation, and is
18 dismissed with prejudice.
19 With respect to the report and recommendation, Sifuentes’ original complaint alleged
20 violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Telecommunications Act, and a variety of
21 state law claims, relating to the fact that Sifuentes’ personal information was allegedly found in
22 the “’Mother of All Breaches,’ a dataset of 183 million accounts that included Google users,” and
23 that Google had previously sent him a privacy notice and notice of an issue with his SIM card.
24 Dkt. No. 1 at 2-3. Judge Spero concluded, among other determinations, that Sifuentes’ complaint
25 lacked factual specificity sufficient to appropriately allege any of Sifuentes’ federal or state law
26 claims. Dkt. No. 13 at 6-12. For example, Judge Spero noted that Sifuentes failed to allege any
27 facts that would show there was a dispute from a credit reporting agency that would even give rise
] customer proprietary network information under the Telecommunications Act. /d. at 11.
2 The Court’s independent review indicates that the report and recommendation is correct in
3 all respects. Sifuentes’ objections are little more than a string of cursory statements to the effect
4 || that the report and recommendation is “not accurate,” without any good reason to so conclude.
5 || Dkt. No. 15 at 1. Consequently, the report and recommendation is adopted in full. Dkt. No. 13.
6 With respect to the amended complaint, none of the shortcomings that resulted in dismissal
7 || were meaningfully addressed. The amended complaint is again almost entirely devoid of facts
8 || that might plausibly allege a claim, such as the contents of the private information said to have
9 || been revealed, when the alleged breach occurred, why Google might be deemed a “furnisher” of
10 Sifuentes’ information to a credit reporting agency, how Google’s actions breached the California
11 Consumer Privacy Act or the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, and the like. Overall, the
12 || claims are simply “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
13 conclusory statements,” that “do not suffice” to plausibly allege a claim. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
14 || U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Consequently, the amended complaint is dismissed.
3 15 Sifuentes’ pleadings have been afforded the generous review given to pro se litigants.
a 16 || Even so, they “still must satisfy the requirements of Rule 8 and state facts sufficient to allege a
17 || plausible claim.” Nordin v. Scott, No. 3:21-CV-04717-JD, 2021 WL 4710697, at *1 (N.D. Cal.
Zz 18 || Oct. 8, 2021) (citation omitted), aff'd, No. 22-15816, 2023 WL 4418595 (9th Cir. July 10, 2023).
19 Sifuentes has now filed multiple complaints. He was given leave to amend in a dismissal order
20 || that identified the shortcomings in his complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261
21 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court’s discretion in providing additional opportunities to amend is
22 || “particularly broad,” Chodos v. West Publishing Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002), and the
23 || record indicates that further amendment would not be productive. Consequently, dismissal is
24 without further leave to amend, and the case is closed.
25 IT IS SO ORDERED.
26 || Dated: May 19, 2026
27
JAMES/#PONATO
28 United Btates District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11374353. Public record. Not legal advice.