Nikko D’Ambrosio v. Meta Platforms Inc.

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

Rajala referred to is not in the com- plaint, but the secondisasfollows, withexpletivescleanedup for this opinion: Speak for yourself you ugly vial [sic] fake whore. Your ego matches that fake f****** face where you can’t even smile in pictures because your teethare sof*****.The truthhurtsb**** and my message will stay with you forever c***. The manner in which Ms. Rajala took the screenshot did not reveal D’Ambrosio’s alternate phone number or any other identifying information. Despite several opportunities, D’Ambrosio never disputed that he sent this last message un- til oral argument in this appeal. Several users responded to Ms. Rajala’s comments with messages of support and consolation. At least one unidenti- fieduser askedfor informationaboutD’Ambrosio’semployer for the stated purpose of trying to have him fired, but D’Am- brosio does not allege that Ms. Rajala or anyone else disclosed any such information. Another unidentified user with the screenname “Monica Tska” responded with a link to a news article about a man 4 No. 25-2231 charged with sexual assault. ... Rajala, her parents, the STT defendants, and Meta each filed separate motions under Federal Rule of Civil Pro- cedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. The district court granted the mo- tions, concluded that any further amendment would be futile, and dismissed the case with prejudice. D’Ambrosio appeals. The operative complaint asserts di- versity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).