Friedrich Lu v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC On Appeal from the United States District Court…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 23-3135
__________
FRIEDRICH LU,
Appellant
v.
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 2-22-cv-03633)
District Judge: Honorable R. Barclay Surrick
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 19, 2024
Before: BIBAS, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: April 26, 2024)
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM
Pro se Appellant Friedrich Lu, a resident of Massachusetts, filed an amended
complaint against Defendant Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, (“Comcast”)
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
alleging violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2520 and Massachusetts state law pertaining to the
interception of wire communications. He alleges that an unknown person “hacked or
snooped on” his Google account, and that after he informed Comcast about the issue, it
aided and abetted the hacker. Comcast filed a motion to dismiss for insufficient service
of process and failure to state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6). Lu opposed the motion to dismiss, and filed a joint response and
motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. After concluding that Lu
failed to properly serve Comcast and failed to state a claim, the District Court granted
Comcast’s motion and dismissed Lu’s complaint. Lu was granted leave to file a second
amended complaint within 30 days of the date of the District Court’s order dismissing his
complaint. He did not do so, and this resulted in his claims being dismissed with
prejudice. Lu timely filed a notice of appeal.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over a
district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d
220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). A plaintiff must present in his or her complaint “factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged” and this “plausibility standard . . . asks for more than a sheer
possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556–57 (2007)). We may
affirm on any basis supported by the record. See Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d
236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
We agree with the District Court’s conclusion that Lu failed to state a claim, as he
does not plausibly allege that Comcast violated either the federal statute governing the
intentional interception of wire communications or its Massachusetts counterpart. His
amended complaint includes a single paragraph describing the substance of his claims:
Plaintiff Friedrich Lu has a Gmail account, including Drive for documents. Google
has notified Lu that his account has been hacked or snooped on, the recent one
being a break-in on Aug 10, 2022. On information and belief, the hacker is a
federal employee conducting warantless searches and seizures. Armed with the
internet protocol address (IP address), Lu complained to Comcast Cable,
according to instructions of its Web page. Comcast Cable instead aided and
abetted the hacker, pledging to conceal the identity among other things.
Lu offers nothing more than threadbare assertions and conclusory statements about
Comcast’s alleged aiding and abetting of a hacker, coupled with citations to the federal
and Massachusetts statutes, and this is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(6). See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Thus, the District Court correctly dismissed
Lu’s complaint for this reason with prejudice when he decided not to further amend it.
On appeal, Lu fails to present any arguments that would cause us to doubt the District
Court’s conclusion.1
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Comcast’s motion
to file a supplemental appendix is granted. Lu’s motion to appoint a special master and
motion to strike are denied.
1 In light of our disposition, we need not consider the District Court’s dismissal for
insufficient service of process. Regarding Lu’s aspersions of “naked judicial corruption”
directed at the District Judge, we find them unsupported and devoid of merit, and we will
address them no further.

-- 3 of 3 --