In this case, plaintiff Jonathan Kaltwasser brought a putative class action against AT&T Mobility under California law, alleging false advertising and related claims based on the company's 'fewest dropped calls' promotions for its wireless service. AT&T moved to compel arbitration under its customer contracts, which included class-action waivers; the district court initially denied the motion, finding the waivers unconscionable under California’s Discover Bank rule, and that ruling was affirmed on appeal. After the Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion held that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts the Discover Bank rule, AT&T renewed its motion. The court granted the motion to compel arbitration, concluding that the arbitration agreements are enforceable and that the class allegations must be resolved individually through arbitration, rendering the motion to strike class allegations moot.
In Young v. Facebook, Inc., a plaintiff with bipolar disorder sued Facebook after her account was deactivated twice for sending excessive friend requests to strangers, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, and state contract and negligence claims based on Facebook's failure to provide human customer service accommodations. The court granted Facebook's motion to dismiss the amended complaint without leave to amend. It held that the ADA claim failed because Ninth Circuit precedent limits "places of public accommodation" to physical locations, excluding websites like Facebook. The contract and negligence claims were dismissed for lack of any breach of the stated terms of service, no facts showing violation of the implied covenant of good faith, and no identified legal duty owed by Facebook.
Chubb Custom Insurance Company sued former property owners and operators under CERCLA and various state laws to recover response costs it paid on behalf of its insured, Taube-Koret, for cleaning up hazardous substance releases at several parcels in Palo Alto, California. The insured had acquired the contaminated sites and been ordered by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board to perform remediation work. Defendants including Ford Motor, Chevron, Sun Microsystems, and others moved to dismiss the third amended complaint. The court granted the motions without leave to amend, concluding that Chubb had not pleaded a viable direct cost-recovery claim under CERCLA § 107(a) or a subrogation claim under CERCLA § 112(c) or other applicable law.
Holomaxx Technologies, an email marketing service provider, sued Microsoft for blocking and throttling its marketing emails sent to Microsoft users, alleging that Microsoft's spam filters wrongly targeted legitimate emails. The complaint asserted nine claims, including violations of the federal Wiretap Act, Stored Communications Act, and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, plus state claims for intentional interference with contract and prospective business advantage, wiretapping, defamation, false light, and unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code section 17200. Microsoft moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion, dismissing all claims with leave to amend except the false light claim, which was dismissed without leave, because the complaint failed to adequately allege lack of consent for email scanning, economic injury, or other elements required for each cause of action, and the UCL claim depended on the viability of the others.
This case is a class action antitrust suit brought by direct purchaser Ritz Camera & Image against SanDisk and executive Eliyahou Harari under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, alleging monopolization and conspiracy to monopolize the NAND flash memory market through fraudulently procured patents. Ritz claimed Harari converted technology from a prior employer, obtained the key 'crown jewel' patents by withholding prior art from the USPTO, and then enforced them via litigation and settlements to drive out competitors like STMicroelectronics, resulting in higher prices. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of Walker Process standing by a purchaser (as opposed to a competitor), failure to plead a conspiracy, lack of antitrust standing, and inadequate market definition. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that direct purchasers have standing to assert Walker Process claims and that the complaint otherwise stated plausible antitrust theories.
In Zepeda v. PayPal, Inc., a group of PayPal users filed a putative class action alleging that the company breached its user agreement and related duties by placing unexplained holds on their accounts for up to 180 days, preventing access to funds, and failing to provide adequate notice or justification. The claims included breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violations of California consumer protection statutes. The court granted PayPal's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, concluding that the user agreement expressly authorized holds for security or risk reasons and that the plaintiffs had not pled sufficient facts to support their other theories, while also granting the unopposed motion to appoint interim lead, liaison, and class counsel. Plaintiffs were given thirty days to file an amended complaint.
