Arbit v. Zuckerberg CA2/8

Filed 2/2/26 Arbit v. Zuckerberg CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

STANISLAV ARBIT, B340261

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 23TRCP00474) v.

MARK ZUCKERBERG,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment and order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Douglas W. Stern, Judge. Affirmed. Stanislav Arbit, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Eric A. Shumsky and Elizabeth A. Bixby for Defendant and Respondent. _________________________________

INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Stanislav Arbit, a former employee at Facebook, Inc., filed a complaint alleging defendant Mark Zuckerberg stalked and defamed him through a network of agents around Stanislav’s home and work. The trial court sustained Zuckerberg’s demurrer and denied Arbit leave to amend. We affirm the order because Arbit alleges fanciful theories with no basis in fact. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1. The Complaint On December 18, 2023, Arbit filed his complaint against Zuckerberg. Arbit alleges he was a former employee at Facebook, Inc. who Zuckerberg targeted because he was a former employee. Arbit further explains that “the defendant is a principal in a fifth- column network that conspires to target Americans, who do not have utility to them, to remove them from society by any available means, including murder.” He elaborated that Zuckerberg agitates his targets for a year to frighten them. Then after a year, “they force the victim, or in this case, they forced me out of housing and employment.” “The goal, and eventual result, is to have the victim’s savings drained, all credit exhausted, and for the victim’s resume to have a long gap in employment.” In addition, “[d]efendant spies on the plaintiff and reflects gathered intelligence in his choreographed field performances and inauthentic interactions with Plaintiff.” Arbit articulates two causes of action against Zuckerberg: (1) stalking under Civil Code section 1708.7, and (2) defamation under Civil Code sections 44 through 47.