Free Request for Judicial Notice - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 1 of 57

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP SHERI FLAME EISNER #162776 [email protected] DAVID L. STANTON # 208079 [email protected] 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5406 Telephone: (213) 488-7100 Facsimile: (213) 629-1033 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP JOHN M. GRENFELL #88500 [email protected] 50 Fremont Street Post Office Box 7880 San Francisco, CA 94120-7880 Telephone: (415) 983-1000 Facsimile: (415) 983-1200 Attorneys for Defendant NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

DOE, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,

No. C 07-5115 JSW REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE

18 vs. 19 NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC, 20 Defendant. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
600455226v1

Judge: Date:
Time: CrtRm:

Hon. Jeffrey S. White
January 25, 2008 9:00 a.m. 2

Defendant's Request For Judicial Notice Case No. C 07-5115 JSW

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 2 of 57

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 4. 16 5. 17 6. 18 7. 19 8. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11. 12. 13. 9. 10.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the authorities cited below, defendant Network Solutions, LLC ("Defendant" or "Network Solutions") hereby requests that the Court take judicial notice of the documents attached to this request as Exhibits 1 through 18, which are incorporated herein by reference. Defendant makes this request in support of its concurrent motions to dismiss the Class Action Complaint ("Complaint" or "CAC") improperly filed by the anonymous plaintiff "Doe" ("Plaintiff") pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP"), and its motion to strike pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(f). EXHIBIT 1. 2. 3. DESCRIPTION Service Agreement, Version 6.7 (2003) (CAC ¶ 9). Service Agreement, Version 7.1 (Sep. 28, 2004) (CAC ¶ 9). Service Agreement, Version 7.6 (Aug. 16, 2005) (CAC ¶ 9). Service Agreement, Version 7.7.1 (2006) (CAC ¶ 9). Service Agreement, Version 7.8 (2007) (CAC ¶ 9). Privacy Policy, Version 2.2 (Nov. 2003) (CAC ¶ 9). Privacy Policy, Version 2.3 (Feb. 2004) (CAC ¶ 9). Privacy Policy, Version 2.4 (Sep. 2004) (CAC ¶ 9). Definition of "search engine," American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed. 2006). Barnett v. Network Solutions, Inc., 38 S.W.3d 200, 203-04 (Tex. App. 2001). Kilgallen v. Network Solutions, Inc., 99 F. Supp. 2d 125, 129 (D. Mass. 2000). Graves v. Pikulski, 115 F. Supp. 2d 931, 934-935 (D. Ill. 2000). Weingrad v. Telepathy, Inc., No. 04 CV 2024 (MBM), 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26952 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2005).

-1-

Defendant's Request For Judicial Notice Case No. C 07-5115 JSW

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 3 of 57

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

14.

Bader v. International Vacations Ltd., No. CV 05-6958 SVW (RCx), Order Granting Defendant Network Solutions' Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue (C.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2006). Weber v. National Football League, No. 3:99CV7790, Order (N.D. OH July 11, 2000). Volpe v. Henry Sun, No. 2838/2005, Short Form Order (NY Sup. Ct., Queens County Jan. 13, 2006). Lancaster v. VeriSign, Inc., No. BC 321199, Notice of Order Granting Motion of Defendants VeriSign, Inc. and Network Solutions, Inc. to Dismiss the Action on the Basis of Forum Non Conveniens (Los Angeles Super. Ct. Dec. 15, 2004). Optima Tech. Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., No. 03CC10743, Notice of Order Granting Defendant Network Solutions, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Optima Technology Corporation, Inc.'s Complaint Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §410.30 For Forum Non Conveniens (Los Angeles Super. Ct. Dec. 15, 2004). GROUNDS FOR REQUESTING JUDICIAL NOTICE

15. 16. 17.

18.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b)(2), the Court may take judicial notice of a fact that is "not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is...capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2). This is true of Exhibits 1 through 18. I. The Service Agreements (Exhibits 1 though 5)

Plaintiff alleges in his October 4, 2007 Complaint that he "registered a private domain name [with Network Solutions] in October 2003 and renewed the registration each year until this year." CAC ¶4. He further alleges that he "also purchased... a single web based email account." Id. In order to register or renew a domain name or web based email account (called a "webmail" account), Network Solutions' customers must agree to a written Service Agreement. Plaintiff admits this, stating that "all Defendant's customers enter into a written agreement with Defendant." CAC ¶9. Exhibits 1-5 are the relevant Service Agreements from October 2003 until October 2007. The Complaint quotes identical language found in each of these agreements. Compare CAC ¶9, with Exh. 1-5 at RFJN 0025, 0075, 0109, 0178 and 0243-44.
Defendant's Request For Judicial Notice Case No. C 07-5115 JSW

-2-

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 4 of 57

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

When ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court may consider documents "whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the [plaintiff's] pleading." Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir. 1994). The Court also may consider the full text of a document that a complaint quotes only in part. See In re Stac Electronics Securities Litig., 89 F.3d 1399, 1405, fn. 4 (9th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff admits he is a party to the Service Agreements, and he selectively quotes from them in his Complaint, thus judicial notice of Exhibits 1-5 is proper. In its motions to dismiss and motion to strike, Defendant identifies several dispositive provisions of the Service Agreements, which are nearly identical in each version. These are specifically identified in the table below: Exh. 1 Exh. 2 Exh. 3 2003 2004 2005 Agreement to RFJN 0007 RFJN 0056 RFJN be Bound 0091-92 Sec. 22 Sec. 22 Sec. 22 Governing Law Exclusive Remedy and Time Limitation1 RFJN 0007 RFJN 0055-56 Sec. 21 Sec. 21 RFJN 0003-04 Sec. 7 RFJN 0052-53 Sec. 7 Exh. 4 Exh. 5 2006 2007 RFJN 0133 RFJN 0225 Sec. 22 Sec. 22

RFJN 0091 RFJN 0133 RFJN 0225 Sec. 21 RFJN 0088-89 Sec. 7 Sec. 21 RFJN 0127-28 Sec. 7 Sec. 21 RFJN 0222 Sec. 7 RFJN 0222-23 Sec. 7

Disclaimer of RFJN 0004 RFJN 0053 RFJN 0089 RFJN Warranties 0128-29 Sec. 8 Sec. 8 Sec. 8 Sec. 8 Email Services Schedule Incorporation of Privacy Policy

RFJN 0025 RFJN 0075 RFJN 0109 RFJN 0178 RFJN 0243-44 Sch. B, §7 Sch. L, §7 Sch. L, §7 Sch. L, §7 Sch. L, §7 RFJN 0003 RFJN 0051-52 Sec. 5 Sec. 5 RFJN 0088 RFJN 0126-27 Sec. 5 Sec. 5 RFJN 0221-22 Sec 5

The 2003 and 2004 versions of the Service Agreement (Exh. 1-2) do not contain a Time Limitation provision. Otherwise, the substantive language is identical. -3Defendant's Request For Judicial Notice Case No. C 07-5115 JSW

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 5 of 57

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

II.

The Privacy Policies (Exhibits 6 through 8)

Plaintiff's alleges, as part of his claim under the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 (Count III) that Defendant violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §22576. CAC ¶47. That statute establishes liability for online businesses that fail to comply with their posted privacy policies, which must comport with the requirements of Bus. & Prof. Code §22572. See e.g., 22575(a) "("An operator of a commercial Web site or online service that collects personally identifiable information through the Internet about individual consumers residing in California ... shall conspicuously post its privacy policy on its Web site.") Exhibits 6 through 8 are Network Solutions' Privacy Policies in effect from November 2003 to the present. These Privacy Policies are incorporated by reference in Section 5 of each of the respective Service Agreements. See e.g., Exhibits 1-5 at RFJN

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Complaint, because it necessarily relies on them, and their authenticity cannot be 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4Defendant's Request For Judicial Notice Case No. C 07-5115 JSW

0003, 0051-52, 0088, 0126-27, and 0221-22. These policies are essential elements of the Service Agreements, and properly the subject of judicial notice for the same reasons set forth above with respect to Exhibits 1-5. Additionally, the Court may take judicial notice of "documents crucial to the plaintiff's claims, but not explicitly incorporated into his complaint." Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 1998). Thus, the Court may consider the Privacy Policies, even though they are not explicitly referenced in the

reasonably contested.

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 6 of 57

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

III.

The Definition of "Search Engine" ­ Exhibit 9

The phrase "search engine" is an English phrase defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as: (1) A software program that searches a database and gathers and reports information that contains or is related to specified terms. (2) A website whose primary function is providing a search engine for gathering and reporting information available on the Internet or a portion of the Internet. American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed. 2006). Under Fed. R. Evid. 201(d), the Court "shall take judicial notice" of adjudicative facts "if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information." Fed. R. Evid. 201(d). A judicially noticed fact may be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). The phrase "search engine" as it is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary is generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It is properly the subject of judicial notice. IV. Decisions Upholding the Governing Law Provision - Exhibits 10 through 18

Exhibits 10-18 are decisions of state and federal courts upholding and enforcing the Governing Law provision in Network Solution's Service Agreement. See Exhs. 1-5 at RFJN 0007, 0055-56, 0091, 0133 and 0225. Under Fed. R. Evid. 201, the Court may take judicial notice of "matters of public record." Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001). Court decisions are matters of public record, thus the Court may take judicial notice of them in the context of a motion to dismiss. See Kent v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 200 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (D. Cal. 2002) (taking judicial notice of two state court decisions and a legal memorandum filed in a state court action on the grounds that they are public documents). Exhibits 10-18 are all court decisions, and therefore, matters of public record properly the subject of judicial notice.

-5-

Defendant's Request For Judicial Notice Case No. C 07-5115 JSW

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 7 of 57

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

V.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, Network Solutions respectfully request that the Court take judicial notice of each of the above-referenced exhibits in ruling on Defendant's motions to dismiss and motion to strike. Dated: November 28, 2007 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP SHERI FLAME EISNER JOHN M. GRENFELL DAVID L. STANTON

By

/s/ Sheri Flame Eisner Attorneys for Defendant NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC

-6-

Defendant's Request For Judicial Notice Case No. C 07-5115 JSW

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 8 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 9 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 10 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 11 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 12 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 13 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 14 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 15 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 16 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 17 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 18 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 19 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 20 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 21 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 22 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 23 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 24 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 25 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 26 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 27 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 28 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 29 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 30 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 31 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 32 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 33 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 34 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 35 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 36 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 37 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 38 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 39 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 40 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 41 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 42 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 43 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 44 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 45 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 46 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 47 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 48 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 49 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 50 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 51 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 52 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 53 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 54 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 55 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 56 of 57

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 20

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 57 of 57