Schobinger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK SCHOBINGER, Case No. 23-cv-03007-VC

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

v. DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

DISMISS

TWITTER, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 16 Defendants.

The motion to dismiss is denied as to the breach of contract claim and granted with leave to amend as to the promissory estoppel claim. This ruling assumes familiarity with the facts, the applicable legal standard, and the arguments made by the parties.1 1. California law governs whether Twitter’s alleged oral statements created a valid, enforceable contract. Twitter says Texas law should govern under Section 1646 of the California Civil Code. But that choice-of-law provision applies only to matters of contract interpretation, not to matters of contract validity or enforceability. Global Commodities Trading Group, Inc. v. Beneficio de Arroz Choloma, S.A., 972 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2020). Because Twitter doesn’t even try to argue that Texas law should apply under the governmental interest approach, California law governs by default. Id. at 1111–12. 2. Schobinger has plausibly stated a breach of contract…