Case 2:20-cv-09581-FLA-RAO Document 30 Filed 01/22/21 Page 1 of 33 Page ID #:142
`
`
`
`EMILY JOHNSON HENN (SBN 269482)
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`3000 El Camino Real
`5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor
`Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
`Telephone: + 1 (650) 632-4700
`Facsimile: + 1 (650) 632-4800
`Email: ehenn@cov.com
`
`SIMON J. FRANKEL (SBN 171552)
`PATRICK R. CAREY (SBN 308623)
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`Salesforce Tower
`415 Mission Street, Suite 5400
`San Francisco, CA 94105-2533
`Telephone: + 1 (415) 591-6000
`Facsimile: + 1 (415) 591-6091
`Email: sfrankel@cov.com
`Email: pcarey@cov.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`Nike, Inc. and FullStory, Inc.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`BURHAAN SALEH, individually and
`on behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`NIKE, INC., and FULLSTORY, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
` Civil Case No.: 2:20-cv-09581-FLA-RAO
`
`DEFENDANTS NIKE, INC. AND
`FULLSTORY, INC.’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST
`AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT
`TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
`PROCEDURE 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), AND
`12(b)(6)
`
`Hearing Date: March 5, 2021
`Hearing Time: 1:30 p.m.
`Honorable Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha
`
`Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANTS NIKE, INC. AND FULLSTORY, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), AND 12(b)(6)
`Case No.: 2:20-cv-09581-FLA-RAO
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-09581-FLA-RAO Document 30 Filed 01/22/21 Page 2 of 33 Page ID #:143
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS ........................................... 1
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .......................................... 1
`I.
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................. 1
`II.
`ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT ..................................................... 3
`A. Nike’s Use of FullStory’s Software and Services ................................ 3
`B.
`Allegations Related to Plaintiff ............................................................ 4
`III. LEGAL STANDARD .................................................................................... 5
`IV. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 6
`A.
`FullStory Should Be Dismissed for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. ..... 6
`1.
`Plaintiff Does Not and Cannot Establish General Jurisdiction
`Over FullStory. ........................................................................... 7
`Plaintiff Does Not and Cannot Establish Specific Jurisdiction
`Over FullStory. ........................................................................... 7
`a)
`The First Amended Complaint Contains No
`Allegations of Purposeful Direction by FullStory. .......... 8
`There Are No Allegations that Plaintiff’s Claims
`Arise Out of or Relate to Forum-Related Activities by
`FullStory. ......................................................................... 9
`The Exercise of Jurisdiction Over FullStory in
`California Is Not Reasonable. ........................................ 10
`Every Claim in the First Amended Complaint Fails as a Matter of
`Law. .................................................................................................... 11
`1.
`The Court Should Dismiss Count 1 Because the First Amended
`Complaint Fails To State a Claim Under Section 631. ............ 11
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`2.
`
`B.
`
`DEFENDANTS NIKE, INC. AND FULLSTORY, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), AND 12(b)(6)
`Case No.: 2:20-cv-09581-FLA-RAO
`i
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-09581-FLA-RAO Document 30 Filed 01/22/21 Page 3 of 33 Page ID #:144
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`FullStory and Nike Did Not Violate Section 631
`Because Nike, Using FullStory’s Technology, Was a
`Party to Plaintiff’s Purported Communications. ........... 11
`FullStory and Nike Did Not Violate Section 631
`Because the Software Did Not Collect the “Contents”
`of Plaintiff’s Purported Communications. ..................... 15
`The Conduct Alleged Did Not Violate Section 631
`Because It Was Disclosed in Nike’s Privacy Policy,
`Relied on by the First Amended Complaint. ................. 17
`The Court Should Dismiss Count 2 Because Plaintiff Lacks
`Standing To Assert Such a Claim and Because the FAC Fails
`To State a Claim Under Section 635. ...................................... 19
`a)
`Plaintiff Lacks a Private Right of Action and Standing
`To Assert a Claim Under Section 635. .......................... 19
`FullStory’s Code Is Not a Device Primarily or
`Exclusively Designed for Eavesdropping. .................... 20
`Even if FullStory’s Code Was a Covered Device,
`Nike’s Conduct Is Not Prohibited by Section 635. ....... 22
`The Court Should Dismiss Count 3 Because Plaintiff Cannot
`State a Claim for Invasion of Privacy Under the California
`Constitution. ............................................................................. 23
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 25
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`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
`
`DEFENDANTS NIKE, INC. AND FULLSTORY, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), AND 12(b)(6)
`Case No.: 2:20-cv-09581-FLA-RAO
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-09581-FLA-RAO Document 30 Filed 01/22/21 Page 4 of 33 Page ID #:145
`
`
`
`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
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal., Solano Cnty.,
`480 U.S. 102 (1987) ........................................................................................................ 5
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ........................................................................................................ 5
`BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell,
`137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017) .................................................................................................... 7
`Boschetto v. Hansing,
`539 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................ 9
`Brainerd v. Governors of the Univ. of Alta.,
`873 F.2d 1257 (9th Cir. 1989) ........................................................................................ 5
`Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal., S.F. Cnty.,
`137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) .......................................................................................... 6, 9, 10
`Brodsky v. Apple Inc.,
`445 F. Supp. 3d 110 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .......................................................................... 15
`Catsouras v. Dep’t of Cal. Highway Patrol,
`181 Cal. App. 4th 856 (2010) ....................................................................................... 24
`Cohen v. Casper Sleep, Inc.,
`2018 WL 3392877 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2018) ............................................................... 19
`Cole v. Sunnyvale,
`2010 WL 532428 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2010) .................................................................... 2
`Daimler AG v. Bauman,
`571 U.S. 117 (2014) .................................................................................................... 6, 7
`Davis v. Fed. Election Comm’n,
`554 U.S. 724 (2008) ...................................................................................................... 20
`Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis,
`138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018) .................................................................................................. 23
`DEFENDANTS NIKE, INC. AND FULLSTORY, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), AND 12(b)(6)
`Case No.: 2:20-cv-09581-FLA-RAO
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-09581-FLA-RAO Document 30 Filed 01/22/21 Page 5 of 33 Page ID #:146
`
`
`
`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
`
`In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litig.,
`956 F.3d 589 (9th Cir. 2020) ............................................................................ 11, 13, 14
`In re Facebook Internet Tracking Litig.,
`140 F. Supp. 3d 922 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .......................................................................... 21
`In re Facebook Internet Tracking Litig.,
`263 F. Supp. 3d 836 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .................................................................... 22, 24
`Freestream Aircraft (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Aero Law Grp.,
`905 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2018) .......................................................................................... 8
`Garcia v. Enter. Holdings, Inc.,
`78 F. Supp. 3d 1125 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .......................................................................... 18
`In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig.,
`536 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................ 5
`In re Google, Inc. Priv. Pol’y Litig.,
`58 F. Supp. 3d 968 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ............................................................................ 25
`Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n,
`7 Cal. 4th 1 (1994) .................................................................................................. 23, 24
`In re iPhone Application Litig.,
`844 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ........................................................................ 25
`In re Lenovo Adware Litig.,
`2016 WL 6277245 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2016) .............................................................. 19
`Low v. LinkedIn Corp.,
`900 F. Supp. 2d 1010 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .................................................................. 23, 25
`Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife,
`504 U.S. 555 (1992) ........................................................................................................ 6
`LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka,
`581 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) ...................................................................................... 21
`
`Membrila v. Receivables Performance Management, LLC,
`
`2010 WL 1407274 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2010) .......................................................... 13, 14
`Navarro v. Block,
`250 F.3d 729 (9th Cir. 2001) .......................................................................................... 5
`DEFENDANTS NIKE, INC. AND FULLSTORY, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), AND 12(b)(6)
`Case No.: 2:20-cv-09581-FLA-RAO
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-09581-FLA-RAO Document 30 Filed 01/22/21 Page 6 of 33 Page ID #:147
`
`
`
`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
`
`In re Palmdale Hills Prop., LLC,
`654 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................... 6, 12
`Panavision Int’l, L.P. v. Toeppen,
`141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998) ........................................................................................ 5
`Rogers v. Ulrich,
`52 Cal. App. 3d 894 (1975) ................................................................................... passim
`Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.,
`374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................. passim
`Scott v. Breeland,
`792 F.2d 925 (9th Cir. 1986) .......................................................................................... 6
`Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,
`136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) .................................................................................................. 20
`Sun Grp. U.S.A. Harmony City, Inc. v. CRRC Corp. Ltd.,
`2018 WL 10689420 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2018) ................................................................ 8
`Taus v. Loftus,
`40 Cal. 4th 683 (2007) .................................................................................................. 24
`Ticketmaster L.L.C. v. Prestige Ent. W., Inc.,
`315 F. Supp. 3d 1147 (C.D. Cal. 2018) .......................................................................... 5
`United States v. Reed,
`575 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2009) ........................................................................................ 15
`Urbaniak v. Newton,
`226 Cal. App. 3d 1128 (1991) ...................................................................................... 24
`Walden v. Fiore,
`571 U.S. 277 (2014) .............................................................................................. 8, 9, 10
`White v. Lee,
`227 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2000) ........................................................................................ 6
`Yunker v. Pandora Media, Inc.,
`2013 WL 1282980 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2013) ............................................................. 25
`In re Zynga Privacy Litig.,
`750 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................ 15, 16
`DEFENDANTS NIKE, INC. AND FULLSTORY, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), AND 12(b)(6)
`Case No.: 2:20-cv-09581-FLA-RAO
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-09581-FLA-RAO Document 30 Filed 01/22/21 Page 7 of 33 Page ID #:148
`
`
`
`Statutes
`18 U.S.C. § 2512 .......................................................................................................... 19, 20
`Cal. Pen. Code § 631 ................................................................................................... passim
`Cal. Pen. Code § 637.2(a) .................................................................................................. 19
`Other Authorities
`Device, Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, https://www.merriam-
`webster.com/dictionary/device (last visited Nov. 13, 2020) ........................................ 21
`Device, Oxford English Dictionary, https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/51464
`(last visited Nov. 13, 2020) ........................................................................................... 21
`FREEDOM TO TINKER (Nov. 15, 2017), https://freedom-to-
`tinker.com/2017/11/15/no-boundaries-exfiltration-of-personal-data-by-
`session-replay-scripts .............................................................................................. 16, 24
`Nike Privacy Policy, Nike, https://agreementservice.svs.nike.com/
`rest/agreement?agreementType=privacyPolicy&uxId=com.nike.commerc
`e.nikedotcom.web&country=US&language=en&requestType=redirect
`(last modified Oct. 12, 2020) .................................................................................. 18, 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS NIKE, INC. AND FULLSTORY, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), AND 12(b)(6)
`Case No.: 2:20-cv-09581-FLA-RAO
`vi
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-09581-FLA-RAO Document 30 Filed 01/22/21 Page 8 of 33 Page ID #:149
`
`
`
`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
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 5, 2021 at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter
`as available, in the courtroom of the Honorable Fernando Aenlle-Rocha, located at 350
`W. 1st Street, 6th Floor, Courtroom 6B, Los Angeles, CA 90012, Defendants FullStory,
`Inc. (“FullStory) and Nike, Inc. (“Nike”) (collectively, “Defendants”), will and hereby do
`move pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for an order
`dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 24) (“FAC”) as
`asserted against FullStory and Nike. FullStory also will, and hereby does move pursuant
`to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for an order dismissing FullStory from this
`action for lack of personal jurisdiction. This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion
`and Motion, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the pleadings and papers on file
`in this action, any other such matters of which the Court may take judicial notice, and any
`other matter that the Court may properly consider. This motion is made following the
`conference of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7-3 which took place on December 7, 2020.
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`Defendant Nike is a worldwide footwear and apparel company that operates a
`retail website at Nike.com. Nike employs the services of co-defendant FullStory, a
`service provider for retail and commercial website operators like Nike. FAC ¶¶ 7, 10.
`As alleged, companies like Nike deploy FullStory’s software on their websites in order to
`understand and improve their websites’ functionality. Complaint (Dkt. No. 1)
`(“Compl.”) ¶ 15.1 This, in turn, allows Nike to improve the user experience for visitors to
`
`
`1 In the FAC, Plaintiff deleted his allegation that FullStory’s software “help[s] businesses
`improve their website design and customer experience.” Compl. ¶ 15. But when
`assessing an amended complaint, “[t]he court may also consider the prior allegations as
`
`DEFENDANTS NIKE, INC. AND FULLSTORY, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), AND 12(b)(6)
`Case No.: 2:20-cv-09581-FLA-RAO
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-09581-FLA-RAO Document 30 Filed 01/22/21 Page 9 of 33 Page ID #:150
`
`
`
`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
`
`its site. Id. For FullStory’s software to work, Nike must add FullStory’s software code
`to Nike’s website. FAC ¶ 24. That software code collects certain usage information
`from visitors to Nike’s website, and the information is used to inform the analytics that
`FullStory provides to Nike. Id. ¶ 25. Plaintiff does not allege this information is used for
`any other purpose.
`Put simply, this case is about a retailer’s ability to understand how its website is
`functioning and how users are interacting with the website to ensure a smooth, error-free
`experience for the website visitors. Plaintiff seeks to criminalize this behavior. But
`Plaintiff’s arguments that this routine internet functionality amounts to unlawful
`wiretapping and eavesdropping are meritless. As such, the Court should dismiss the FAC
`with prejudice for the reasons described below.
`First, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over FullStory, a Georgia-based
`company incorporated in Delaware. The FAC is devoid of any allegations of forum-
`related conduct by FullStory, and the assertion of personal jurisdiction over FullStory
`here is contrary to the Supreme Court’s recent holdings. So FullStory should be
`dismissed from this action.
`Second, Plaintiff has failed to state any claim under which he is entitled to relief.
`The California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) claims fail for multiple reasons. As to
`Plaintiff’s Section 631 claim, Nike and FullStory were the recipients of Plaintiff’s
`communications and thus fit within CIPA’s well-recognized party exception. FullStory
`was not a third party to the communication, but instead an extension of Nike, thus neither
`Nike nor FullStory can be held liable for eavesdropping under the party exception. In
`addition, Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege that the “contents” of his communications
`
`
`part of its ‘context-specific’ inquiry based on its judicial experience and common sense to
`assess whether the . . . Amended Complaint plausibly suggests an entitlement to relief, as
`required under [Ashcroft v.] Iqbal.” Cole v. Sunnyvale, 2010 WL 532428, at *4 (N.D.
`Cal. Feb. 9, 2010) (citation omitted).
`DEFENDANTS NIKE, INC. AND FULLSTORY, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), AND 12(b)(6)
`Case No.: 2:20-cv-09581-FLA-RAO
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-09581-FLA-RAO Document 30 Filed 01/22/21 Page 10 of 33 Page ID #:151
`
`
`
`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
`
`were intercepted, an essential element of a Section 631 claim. And none of the data
`collection alleged in the FAC is surreptitious, as required by Section 631, given that
`everything complained of is fully disclosed in Nike’s privacy policy (which is relied on in
`the FAC). As a result, neither Nike nor FullStory can be liable under Section 631, and
`Nike cannot be liable for allegedly aiding and abetting or conspiring with FullStory to
`violate the statute. Plaintiff also cannot state a claim under Penal Code Section 635, for
`trafficking in or possessing a wiretap device, because Plaintiff has not adequately alleged
`an underlying violation of that section, which is required both to establish a private right
`of action and to support standing to bring a Section 635 claim. Plaintiff’s Section 635
`claim fails on the additional ground that FullStory’s software-based service is not a
`“device” which is “primarily or exclusively designed or intended for eavesdropping,” as
`required.
`Third, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for invasion of privacy under the
`California Constitution. Plaintiff cannot plausibly allege that he held a reasonable
`expectation of privacy in the information Defendants allegedly collected because Plaintiff
`himself intentionally sent it to the Defendants. Nor has Plaintiff plausibly alleged that the
`data collection at issue constitutes an “egregious breach of social norms.” As a matter of
`law, such routine collection of data for analytics purposes cannot rise to the requisite
`level for invasion of privacy.
`For these reasons, the Court should dismiss the FAC in its entirety.
`
`II.
`
`ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT
`A. Nike’s Use of FullStory’s Software and Services
`FullStory is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. FAC ¶ 8.
`It provides a software-based service to companies that is designed to “improve the[]
`website design and customer experience” of the websites. Compl. ¶ 15. FullStory’s
`customers embed FullStory’s code on their own websites, which in turn allows those
`website operators to see certain information about how visitors to their websites are
`DEFENDANTS NIKE, INC. AND FULLSTORY, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), AND 12(b)(6)
`Case No.: 2:20-cv-09581-FLA-RAO
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-09581-FLA-RAO Document 30 Filed 01/22/21 Page 11 of 33 Page ID #:152
`
`
`
`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
`
`interacting with and utilizing their sites. FAC ¶¶ 38, 41. Although incompletely and
`inaccurately described in the FAC, as alleged, this code allows the FullStory software, in
`some instances, to recognize, collect, and display certain events such as “keystrokes” and
`“mouse clicks.” Id. ¶ 41. It also allows FullStory to simulate a user’s website
`interactions through the software’s “Session Replay.”2 Id. ¶ 21.
`Nike is one such customer that relies on FullStory for website analytics services.
`Id. ¶¶ 35–36. As Plaintiff explains, Nike “voluntarily embedd[ed]” FullStory’s code on
`its website “and pays FullStory to supply” the data that is needed to analyze how users
`interact with Nike’s website, as shown in a session replay. Id. ¶¶ 37–38. The FAC
`correctly observes that FullStory is not a software company in the traditional sense of
`someone who sells copies of its software; rather, FullStory provides “Software-as-a-
`Service” or “SaaS.” Id. ¶ 9, 15. Thus, instead of requiring its customers to purchase the
`software, install it on their own computers, and collect and host the website-interaction
`data on their own computers or servers, FullStory provides all of this for its customers,
`allowing its customers to interact with the data in the cloud, once the website operator has
`put FullStory’s code on its website.
`B. Allegations Related to Plaintiff
`Plaintiff Burhaan Saleh is a California resident who alleges that in May 2020 he
`visited Nike’s website and purchased a pair of shoes. Id. ¶ 4. As part of this visit,
`Plaintiff alleges that he submitted his payment card information to Nike through its
`website. Id. Plaintiff alleges that FullStory “recorded” this information for Nike in
`addition to Plaintiff’s other key strokes and mouse clicks. Id. ¶ 25.
`
`
`2 Plaintiff misleadingly cites to FullStory’s own website for his allegation that the Session
`Replay feature “relies on real video of a user’s interactions with a website . . . .” FAC ¶
`19. The website cited states exactly the opposite: that the “replay” is a “high-fidelity
`reproduction” of a user’s interaction with the website, not an actual video. The Definitive
`Guide to Session Replay, FullStory, https://www.fullstory.com/resources/the-definitive-
`guide-to-session-replay (last updated Oct. 2019).
`DEFENDANTS NIKE, INC. AND FULLSTORY, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), AND 12(b)(6)
`Case No.: 2:20-cv-09581-FLA-RAO
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-09581-FLA-RAO Document 30 Filed 01/22/21 Page 12 of 33 Page ID #:153
`
`
`
`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
`
`Plaintiff does not allege that FullStory did anything with his “communications”
`other than make them available to Nike, the very entity to which Plaintiff was providing
`his information. Plaintiff also does not allege that FullStory or Nike sold or otherwise
`disclosed his data to any third parties, or that he was affected in any way by the alleged
`conduct.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`Plaintiffs bear the burden of supporting the exercise of personal jurisdiction over
`each defendant individually. See Brainerd v. Governors of the Univ. of Alta., 873 F.2d
`1257, 1258 (9th Cir. 1989). “Where, as here, there is no applicable federal statute
`governing personal jurisdiction, the district court applies the law of the state in which the
`district court sits.” Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th
`Cir. 2004) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A)). “California’s long-arm statute permits a
`court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant to the extent permitted by the Due
`Process Clause of the Constitution.” Panavision Int’l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316,
`1320 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10). “[T]he determination
`whether an exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with due process remains whether
`the defendant purposefully established minimum contacts in the forum State.” Asahi
`Metal Indus. Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal., Solano Cnty., 480 U.S. 102, 108–09 (1987).
`A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) “tests the legal sufficiency of a
`claim.” Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). A complaint “must contain
`sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
`face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A “threadbare” recitation of the
`elements of a cause of action does not suffice. Id. Neither do conclusory allegations or
`allegations that “merely track[] the language of the statute[s] [themselves], without
`providing facts to substantiate the claimed legal conclusions.” Ticketmaster L.L.C. v.
`Prestige Ent. W., Inc., 315 F. Supp. 3d 1147, 1175 (C.D. Cal. 2018); see also In re Gilead
`Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008) (courts should not accept as true
`
`DEFENDANTS NIKE, INC. AND FULLSTORY, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), AND 12(b)(6)
`Case No.: 2:20-cv-09581-FLA-RAO
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-09581-FLA-RAO Document 30 Filed 01/22/21 Page 13 of 33 Page ID #:154
`
`
`
`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
`
`“allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable
`inferences”).
`A challenge to a federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction is properly raised under
`a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th
`Cir. 2000). “Article III standing is a necessary component of subject matter jurisdiction.”
`In re Palmdale Hills Prop., LLC, 654 F.3d 868, 873 (9th Cir. 2011). Standing requires
`that the plaintiff suffered an “injury in fact” that is “concrete and particularized.” Lujan
`v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). In seeking to invoke a court’s jurisdiction,
`plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d
`925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`A.
`FullStory Should Be Dismissed for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.
`In order for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant it must have
`either “general” or “specific” personal jurisdiction. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Super.
`Ct. of Cal., S.F. Cnty., 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1780 (2017). For corporate entities, “the place of
`incorporation and principal place of business are paradigm” examples of general
`jurisdiction. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 137 (2014). Additionally, general
`jurisdiction can exist as to a corporation outside of the forum where it is incorporated or
`headquartered if its contacts are “so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially
`at home” in a different forum. Id. at 139. Separately, for a finding that specific personal
`jurisdiction exists, “the suit must arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the
`forum.” Bristol-Myers, 137 S. Ct. at 1780. “Where a defendant moves to dismiss a
`complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating
`that jurisdiction is appropriate.” Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 800 (citation omitted).
`Here, Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient for the Court to exercise either general or
`specific jurisdiction over FullStory.
`
`DEFENDANTS NIKE, INC. AND FULLSTORY, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), AND 12(b)(6)
`Case No.: 2:20-cv-09581-FLA-RAO
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-09581-FLA-RAO Document 30 Filed 01/22/21 Page 14 of 33 Page ID #:155
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Plaintiff Does Not and Cannot Establish General Jurisdiction
`Over FullStory.
`In recent years, the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the limited
`circumstances under which general jurisdiction applies. For example, in Daimler AG v.
`Bauman, the Supreme Court held that “only when the corporation’s affiliations with the
`State in which suit is brought are so constant and pervasive ‘as to render [it] essentially at
`home in the forum State’” will general jurisdiction exist. 571 U.S. at 122 (quoting
`Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2851 (2011)). The
`Daimler Court clarified that the “paradigm” forums for general jurisdiction are the
`corporation’s (i) place of incorporation and (ii) principal place of business. Id. at 137.
`Three years after Daimler, the Court again emphasized the narrow circumstances under
`which general jurisdiction can attach: “BNSF, we repeat, is not incorporated [in
`Montana] and does not maintain its principal place of business [in Montana]. Nor is
`BNSF so heavily engaged in activity in Montana ‘as to render [it] essentially at home’ in
`that State.” BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549, 1559 (2017) (citing Daimler, 571
`U.S. at 137).
`FullStory is neither incorporated in California nor does it have its principal place of
`business there. See FAC ¶ 8. There are no allegations that FullStory has “so heavily
`engaged in activity” in California so as to make FullStory “essentially