Free Proposed Order - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 13

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 1 of 3

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 [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE §12(b)6

18 vs. 19 NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC, 20 Defendant. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
600453929v1

Judge: Date: Time: CrtRm:

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

-1-

[PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Case No. C 07-5115 JSW

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 13

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 2 of 3

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

Defendant Network Solutions LLC's ("Network Solutions") Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), came on regularly for hearing in Room 2 of this Court on January 25, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. before the Honorable Jeffrey S. White. Network Solutions was represented by the law firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP and plaintiff Doe ("Plaintiff") was represented by the law firm of Gutride Safier Reese LLP. After full consideration of the pleadings, records and files herein, including oral argument by both parties, and the authorities submitted by counsel, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff's complaint lacks sufficient factual allegations to "raise a right to relief above the speculative level," and fails to "cross the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief." Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965-66 (2007). In particular, the Court finds that Count I, under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. §2702), includes no factual allegations suggesting Network Solutions "knowingly divulged" any information, as that provision requires. Counts II and III, under California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code §1750 et seq.) and Unfair Competition Law (Bus & Prof. Code §17200 et seq.), fail to identify any false or misleading representations or advertisements, or any unfair, fraudulent or unlawful business practices. Count IV, under the California Customer Records Act (Cal. Civ. Code §1798.80 et seq.), does not apply because the statute sets requirements for the destruction of data, which is not alleged, and otherwise protects information maintained for a business's own use, whereas the customer emails at issue in this case not monitored or used by Network Solutions. Plaintiff's common law claims for public disclosure of private facts (Count V) and unjust enrichment (Count VI) also fail because there are no substantive allegations that show an intentional disclosure, indicating a release of highly personal information, or demonstrating Defendant was unjustly enriched.

600453929v1

-2-

[PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Case No. C 07-5115 JSW

Case 3:07-cv-05115-JSW

Document 13

Filed 11/28/2007

Page 3 of 3

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

Based on these findings, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Dated: Jeffrey S. White Judge of the United States District Court

600453929v1

-3-

[PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Case No. C 07-5115 JSW