throbber
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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket