United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is defendant Match.com, LLC's
("Match") motion to dismiss (ECF No. 34) plaintiff
Mary Kay Beckman's ("Beckman") amended
complaint (ECF No. 31). Beckman filed a response (ECF No.
to which Match replied (ECF No. 38).
action arises out of the attack of Beckman by Wade
Ridley ("Ridley"), a man she met using
Match's service. (ECF No. 1 at 3). On September 26, 2010,
Beckman and Ridley had their first date, but less than ten
days later, on October 3, 2010, Beckman ended the
relationship. (ECF No. 31 at 3).
October 4, 2010, and October 7, 2010, Ridley sent
"numerous threatening and harassing text messages to
[Beckman], to which she did not respond." (ECF No. 31 at
3). Four months after Beckman ended the relationship, on
January 21, 2011, Ridley viciously attacked her. (ECFNo. 31
January 18, 2013, Beckman filed a complaint in this court
asserting five causes of action against Match: (1) negligent
misrepresentation; (2) deceptive trade practices pursuant to
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1); (3) negligence (failure to warn);
(4) negligence; and (5) negligent infliction of emotional
distress. (ECF No. 1).
court, in an order dated May 29, 2013, dismissed
Beckman's complaint for, inter alia, Match's
immunity under the Communications Decency Act ("CD
A"). (ECFNo. 18). Beckman appealed that order, and in a
memorandum dated September 1, 2016, the Ninth Circuit
affirmed this court's dismissal of all claims except one:
negligence (failure to warn). (ECF No. 24).
Ninth Circuit reasoned that Beckman's failure to warn
claim was not barred by the CDA under Doe No. 14 v.
Internet Brands, Inc., 824 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2016).
Because the failure to warn claim was not barred by the CDA,
Beckman was afforded the opportunity to amend her complaint,
and now brings one claim for negligently failing to warn.
(ECF No. 31 at 5). In her amended complaint, Beckman added
the following allegations:
24. Upon information and belief, MATCH received complaints
that subscriber(s) commonly known as Wade Ridley, Wade
Williams or others, harassed, threatened, and/or violently
attacked other women utilizing MATCH'S services. Despite
these complaints, MATCH allowed Wade Ridley's, Wade
Williams' and/or other profile names to remain active.
34. Defendant MATCH owed a duty of reasonable care to inform
and warn Plaintiff that use of the Match.com website
generally, and Wade Ridley (and aliases) specifically, were
likely dangerous and that Members including Wade Ridley
(included aliases) had identified and attacked other women
using Defendant MATCH'S service prior to January 21,
(ECF No. 31 at 4-5).
alleges that Match had a duty to warn her that use of its
website generally, and Ridley specifically, were dangerous.
(ECF No. 31 at 5).
may dismiss a complaint for "failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted." Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6). A properly pled complaint must provide "[a]
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2);
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007). While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual
allegations, it demands "more than labels and
conclusions" or a "formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action." Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted).
allegations must be enough to rise above the speculative
level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Thus, to
survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter to "state a claim to relief
that is plausible on ...