ORDER DISMISSING CASE

WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.

In February 2019, pro se plaintiff Sandra O'Hara-Harmon initiated this action against defendant Facebook, Inc. attempting to allege various claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and a single claim for extortion (Dk. No. 1). In May 2019, an order dismissed plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim (Dkt. No. 29). In July 2019, an order denied plaintiff's attempt to amend (Dkt. No. 39). In August 2019, plaintiff responded to the order issued in July 2019 without adding any new facts (Dkt. No. 41). Because it is now clear that amendment would be futile, this order hereby DISMISSES the case without leave to amend. Judgment will be entered separately.

To recount, the original complaint averred that in January 2019 plaintiff paid Facebook to advertise one of her posts. When the advertisement did not immediately circulate, plaintiff re-posted her advertisement seven times in four days. Facebook "locked" plaintiff's account. Facebook sent plaintiff an e-mail that it appeared her account had been compromised. Plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted to re-open her account (Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 1-14).

Plaintiff complained via Facebook's "help-support page." A man living in India named Babulal Sarkar, contacted plaintiff and claimed to have experienced the same problem. His Facebook page represented he was a "Manager at Facebook." From this fact alone, plaintiff concluded that Mr. Sarkar "intentionally locked and banned" plaintiff from accessing her account. Plaintiff then called a person named Gulberg Hendrick, whom plaintiff believed to be associated with Facebook's technical support headquarters. The man she spoke with offered to "unblock" plaintiff's account in exchange for a $100 Google Play card purchased at Walmart (id. ¶¶ 16-19, 26-27). The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend (Dkt. No. 29).

On amendment, plaintiff added the following facts. On December 11, 2018, Facebook "censored" two approved ads while continuing to bill plaintiff for those ads. Mr. Sarkar purportedly censored the ads because the ads shed a negative light on the medical treatment of plaintiff's now deceased child. Plaintiff's child was transgender. Both Mr. Sarkar and plaintiff's child's former attending physician are from India. Plaintiff had commented to Mr. Sarkar that "[i]t's rumored that in India, transgender individuals are treated harshly, so I assume this doctor from India believed my daughter's life was not worth saving, which is why he did nothing to aid in preserving it. . . ." (Dkt. No. 33 ¶ 8). Plaintiff accordingly theorized that Mr. Sarkar took offense to the ads and censored them (Dkt. No. 33 ¶¶ 2-3, 8; p. 6 ¶¶ 7-9).

Plaintiff spent $200 on her ads and then permitted Facebook to charge another $400. Plaintiff conclusorily insisted that some of the ads were supposed to run until May 22, 2019, and other ads until July 3, 2019. Plaintiff never specified when the ads stopped circulating. Moreover, plaintiff's AOL account was subsequently hacked. Plaintiff blamed Facebook (id. at ¶¶ 9-17; p. 4 ¶¶ 1-3).

On these facts, plaintiff attempted to allege three claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and one claim for extortion. More specifically, the original complaint attempted to allege claims for: (i) "locking plaintiff out of her Facebook account in bad faith;" (ii) "preventing access to the Facebook community page in bad faith;" (iii) "censoring the advertisement in bad faith;" and that (iv) Facebook's employee Gulberg Hendrick engaged in extortion (Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 1-4). Two prior orders concluded each of these claims failed (Dkt. Nos. 29, 39).

Specifically, a claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing required Facebook to have made an obligation and not deliver on it. Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc., 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1395 (1990). "Just what conduct will meet this criteria must be determined on a case by case basis and will depend on the contractual purposes and reasonably justified expectations of the parties." Ibid. The allegations in the amended complaint, however, were inadequate. From the facts provided, it remained impossible to tell whether Facebook's conduct frustrated a contractual purpose or plaintiff's reasonably justified expectation. The amended complaint indicated that Facebook had purportedly promised to run ads until May 2019 or July 2019 but did not do so. Yet, plaintiff never provided any reason why she believed the ad was supposed to run for that period of time or why the ads running for less time frustrated her reasonably justified expectation when she paid her money.

Furthermore, plaintiff's bad faith theories rested on the purported conduct by Mr. Sarkar. Yet, plaintiff never adequately connected the dots between Mr. Sarkar and Facebook. The only connection alleged was that Mr. Sarkar was a "Manager at Facebook" as represented on his Facebook profile. This was not enough. Further support for the bad faith allegation was needed.

Turning to the attempted claim for extortion, plaintiff had not put forward any factual allegation that Mr. Hendrick induced plaintiff to buy the Walmart gift card through force or fear. See Cal. Penal Code § 518. Furthermore, even assuming Mr. Hendrick was a Facebook employee, no allegation had been put forward that Mr. Hendrick acted within the scope of his employment. See Perez v. Van Groningen & Sons, Inc., 41 Cal.3d 962, 967 (1986).

* * *

Plaintiff's most recent filing in August 2019 adds no new facts (Dkt. No. 41). Plaintiff instead notes that "[t]here is no need for me the [p]laintiff to keep explaining and rephrasing the facts to this court . . . ." (id. ¶ 9). As such, the prior deficiencies remain. Through her refusal to clarify or add new facts, plaintiff has accordingly made clear that further leave to amend would be futile. As such, plaintiff's complaint is hereby DISMISSED without leave to amend. The initial case management conference set for August 22 is hereby VACATED. Judgment will be entered separately.

IT IS SO ORDERED.