Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 32 Filed 06/03/21 Page 1 of 30 Page ID #:208
`
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`COOLEY LLP
`MICHELLE C. DOOLIN (179445)
`(mdoolin@cooley.com)
`4401 East Gate Mall
`San Diego, California 92121-1909
`Telephone: +1 858 550 6000
`Facsimile: +1 858 550 6402
`
`WHITTY SOMVICHIAN (194463)
`(wsomvichian@cooley.com)
`SHARON SONG (313535)
`(ssong@cooley.com)
`101 California Street, 5th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111-5800
`Telephone: +1 415 693 2000
`Facsimile: +1 415 693 2222
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`ALPHABET, INC., GOOGLE, LLC,
`GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP., and
`GOOGLE ARIZONA LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`HENK MEYERS and GLENN
`GINOZA, Individually and on Behalf
`of All Others Similarly Situated,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`ALPHABET, INC., GOOGLE, LLC,
`GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP., and
`GOOGLE ARIZONA LLC,
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 2:21-CV-01767 FMO (MAAx)
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST
`AMENDED COMPLAINT, TRANSFER
`VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE CLASS
`ALLEGATIONS
`Declaration of Whitty Somvichian;
`Declaration of Joseph Mills; and
`[Proposed] Order filed concurrently
`herewith
`
`Date:
`Time:
`Dept.:
`Judge:
`
`Complaint Filed: February 25, 2021
`
`10:00 a.m.
`August 5, 2021
`Courtroom 6D, 6th floor
`Hon. Fernando M. Olguin
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFS.’ MOT. TO DISMISS THE FAC,
`TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`CASE NO. 2:21-CV-01767
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 32 Filed 06/03/21 Page 2 of 30 Page ID #:209
`
`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 CONTENTS
`
`PAGE
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION .................................................................... 1
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ......................................................... 2
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ............................................ 2
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 2
`II.
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................... 4
`A. Google Play ................................................................................................. 4
`B. Google Play Gift Cards ............................................................................... 4
`C.
`Plaintiffs’ Allegations ................................................................................. 6
`D. Google’s Forum Selection Clause ............................................................... 7
`III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 8
`A.
`Plaintiffs’ Claims Should Be Dismissed Under the Doctrine of Forum
`Non Conveniens or, Alternatively, Transferred to the Northern District of
`California ..................................................................................................... 8
`The Gift Card TOS and Google Play TOS Are Valid Contracts
`Containing an Enforceable Forum Selection Clause ............................. 9
`The Forum Selection Clause Incorporated by Reference into the Gift
`Card TOS is Valid and Enforceable..................................................... 11
`The Forum Selection Clause Should Be Enforced Through Either
`Dismissal or Transfer to the Northern District of California ............... 12
`The FAC Should be Dismissed Under Rule 12(b)(6) ............................... 15
`Plaintiffs’ UCL and Breach of Contract Claims Fail Because Google
`Play Gift Cards Are Exempted from Requirements of the Gift
`Certificate Law ..................................................................................... 15
`The UCL Claim (All Prongs) Fails Because Plaintiffs Have an
`Adequate Remedy at Law .................................................................... 16
`The Fraud-Based UCL Claim Fails Because It Does Not Meet
`Rule 9(b)’s Heightened Pleading Requirements .................................. 18
`The Claim for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair
`Dealing Fails Because It Merely Duplicates the Breach of Contract
`Claim .................................................................................................... 19
`Plaintiffs’ Class Allegations and Allegations Concerning Bona Fide
`Google Play Gift Card Purchasers and Holders Should Be Stricken Under
`Rule 12(f) .................................................................................................. 21
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 23
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`B.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`C.
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`DEFS.’ MOT. TO DISMISS THE FAC,
`TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`CASE NO. 2:21-CV-01767
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 32 Filed 06/03/21 Page 3 of 30 Page ID #:210
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`PAGE
`
`Cases
`In re Actimmune Mktg. Litig.,
`No. C 08-02376 MHP, 2009 WL 3740648 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6,
`2009), aff’d, 464 F. App’x 651 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................. 19
`Am. W. Door & Trim v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co.,
`No. CV 15-00153 BRO SPX, 2015 WL 1266787 (C.D. Cal.
`Mar. 18, 2015) ........................................................................................ 21, 22, 23
`Arena Rest. & Lounge LLC v. S. Glazer’s Wine & Spirits, LLC,
`No. 17-cv-03805-LHK, 2018 WL 1805516 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16,
`2018) ................................................................................................................... 20
`Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Texas,
`571 U.S. 49 (2013) ............................................................................. 8, 12, 13, 14
`Bates v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co.,
`993 F. Supp. 2d 1318 (D. Or. 2014) ................................................................... 21
`Brazil v. Dell Inc.,
`585 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (N.D. Cal. 2008) .................................................. 21, 22, 23
`Bureerong v. Uvawas,
`922 F. Supp. 1450 (C.D. Cal. 1996) ................................................................... 21
`Careau & Co. v. Sec. Pac. Bus. Credit, Inc.,
`222 Cal. App. 3d 1371 (1990) ...................................................................... 19, 20
`Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute,
`499 U.S. 585 (1991) ........................................................................................... 11
`Clippercreek, Inc. v. Intelligrated Sys., LLC,
`No. 2:19-cv-01341-WBS KJN, 2020 WL 230179 (E.D. Cal. Jan.
`15, 2020) ............................................................................................................. 12
`Creative Tech., Ltd. v. Aztech Sys. Pte., Ltd.,
`61 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 1995) ................................................................................ 13
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`DEFS.’ MOT. TO DISMISS THE FAC,
`TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`CASE NO. 2:21-CV-01767
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 32 Filed 06/03/21 Page 4 of 30 Page ID #:211
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(cont’d)
`
`PAGE
`
`Croshal v. Aurora Bank, F.S.B.,
`No. C 13-05435 SBA, 2014 WL 2796529 (N.D. Cal. June 19,
`2014) ................................................................................................................... 20
`Duttweiler v. Triumph Motorcycles (Am.) Ltd.,
`No. 14-cv-04809-HSG, 2015 WL 4941780 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19,
`2015) ................................................................................................................... 17
`E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Andina Licores S.A.,
`440 F. Supp. 2d 1115 (E.D. Cal. 2006) .............................................................. 11
`Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty,
`984 F.2d 1524 (9th Cir. 1993) ............................................................................ 21
`Feldman v. Google, Inc.,
`513 F. Supp. 2d 229 (E.D. Pa. 2007) .................................................................. 10
`In re Ford Tailgate Litig.,
`No. 11-cv-2953-RS, 2014 WL 1007066 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2014) ................. 17
`Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon,
`457 U.S. 147 (1982) ........................................................................................... 21
`Gibson v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC,
`No. CV 20-00769-CJC, 2020 WL 5492990 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 9,
`2020) ................................................................................................................... 18
`Goldsmith v. Allergan, Inc.,
`No. CV 09-7088 PSG (EX), 2011 WL 147714 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13,
`2011) ................................................................................................................... 19
`Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert,
`330 U.S. 501 (1947) ........................................................................................... 14
`Hovsepian v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 08-5788 JF (PVT), 2009 WL 5069144 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17,
`2009) ................................................................................................................... 21
`Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.,
`567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) ...................................................................... 18, 19
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`DEFS.’ MOT. TO DISMISS THE FAC,
`TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`CASE NO. 2:21-CV-01767
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 32 Filed 06/03/21 Page 5 of 30 Page ID #:212
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(cont’d)
`
`PAGE
`
`Knievel v. ESPN,
`393 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2005) .............................................................................. 5
`Lamke v. Sunstate Equip. Co., LLC,
`387 F. Supp. 2d 1044 (N.D. Cal. 2004) .............................................................. 20
`Lemberg v. LuLaRoe, LLC,
`No. ED CV 17-02102-AB, 2018 WL 6927844 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 17,
`2018) ..................................................................................................................... 9
`M/S Bremen v. Zapta Off-Shore Co.,
`407 U.S. 1 (1971) ............................................................................................... 11
`In re MacBook Keyboard Litig.,
`No. 5:18-cv-2813, 2020 WL 6047253 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2020) ..................... 18
`Meyer v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp.,
`No. 14CV2496 AJB (NLS), 2015 WL 728631 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 19,
`2015) ................................................................................................................... 11
`Miguel v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
`No. CV 12-3308 PSG, 2013 WL 452418 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2013) ................... 10
`Mort v. United States,
`86 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 1996) ................................................................................ 17
`
`Partti v. Palo Alto Med. Found. For Health Care, Research & Educ.,
`Inc.,
`No. 5:13-cv-04742-PSG, 2015 WL 6664477 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2,
`2015) ................................................................................................................... 19
`Philips v. Ford Motor Co.,
`No. 14-cv-02989-LHK, 2015 WL 4111448 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2015) ............... 17
`Reynolds v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.,
`332 F. App’x 397 (9th Cir. 2009) ....................................................................... 16
`Rojas-Lozano v. Google, Inc.,
`No. 15-10160-MGM, 2015 WL 4779245 (D. Mass. Aug. 12, 2015) ................ 10
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`DEFS.’ MOT. TO DISMISS THE FAC,
`TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`CASE NO. 2:21-CV-01767
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 32 Filed 06/03/21 Page 6 of 30 Page ID #:213
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(cont’d)
`
`PAGE
`
`Rudgayzer v. Google, Inc.,
`986 F. Supp. 2d 151 (E.D.N.Y. 2013), order withdrawn, 2014 WL
`12676233 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2014) .................................................................. 10
`Salas v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.,
`No. CV 15-8629 FMO (Ex), 2016 WL 7486600 (C.D. Cal. Sept.
`27, 2016) ............................................................................................................. 17
`Sanders v. Apple Inc.,
`672 F. Supp. 2d 978 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ................................................................ 21
`Slaught v. Bencomo Roofing Co.,
`25 Cal. App. 4th 744 (1994) ................................................................................. 9
`Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
`971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020) ........................................................................ 16, 18
`SuperMedia LLC v. Law Firm of Asherson,
`No. LA CV 12-03834-JAK, 2013 WL 12114831 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 6,
`2013) ..................................................................................................................... 9
`Taylor v. 123RF LLC,
`No. 2:16-cv-04129-SVW-FFMx, 2017 WL 8229624 (C.D. Cal.
`Nov. 30, 2017) .................................................................................................... 16
`Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.,
`551 U.S. 308 (2007) ..................................................................................... 4, 5, 6
`Transwestern Pipeline Co. v. 17.19 Acres of Property,
`627 F.3d 1268 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 16
`
`U.S. Bank, N.A. for Registered Holders of ML-CFC Com. Mortg. Tr.
`2007-7 v. Miller, No. CV-12-5632 MMM (MANx), 2013 WL
`12183652 (C.D. Cal. May 8, 2013) .................................................................... 20
`Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA,
`317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 18
`Weber v. PACT XPP Techs., AG,
`811 F.3d 758 (5th Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 12
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`DEFS.’ MOT. TO DISMISS THE FAC,
`TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`CASE NO. 2:21-CV-01767
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 32 Filed 06/03/21 Page 7 of 30 Page ID #:214
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(cont’d)
`
`PAGE
`
`Williams v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 19-cv-04700-LHK, 2020 WL 6743911 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17,
`2020) ................................................................................................................... 17
`Yei A. Sun v. Advanced China Healthcare, Inc.,
`901 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2018) ...................................................................... 11, 12
`Zapata Fonseca v. Goya Foods Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-02559-LHK, 2016 WL 4698942 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8,
`2016) ................................................................................................................... 17
`Statutes
`28 U.S.C.
`§ 1332(d)(2) ........................................................................................................ 14
`§ 1404(a) ...................................................................................................... passim
`Civ. Code
`Part 4 ................................................................................................................... 15
`§ 1749.45 et seq. .......................................................................................... passim
`§ 1749.45(a) .......................................................................................... 2, 3, 15, 16
`§ 1749.5(b) .......................................................................................................... 15
`§ 1749.5(c) .......................................................................................................... 15
`§ 1785.3(c) .......................................................................................................... 15
`Corp. Code § 150 ..................................................................................................... 15
`Other Authorities
`Fed. R. Civ. P.
`9(b) ........................................................................................................ 2, 3, 18, 19
`12(b)(6) ........................................................................................................... 1, 15
`12(f) ............................................................................................................ 1, 4, 21
`23 .................................................................................................................... 4, 21
`23(a)(3) ............................................................................................................... 21
`L.R. 7-3 ...................................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`DEFS.’ MOT. TO DISMISS THE FAC,
`TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`CASE NO. 2:21-CV-01767
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 32 Filed 06/03/21 Page 8 of 30 Page ID #:215
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 5, 2021 at 10:00 a.m., or as soon
`thereafter as this Motion may be heard in the above-titled court, located at 350 W. 1st
`Street, 6th Floor, Courtroom 6D, Los Angeles, CA 90012, Defendants Alphabet, Inc.,
`Google, LLC, Google Payment Corp., and Google Arizona LLC (collectively,
`“Google” or “Defendants”) will move to dismiss the First Amended Class Action
`Complaint (Dkt. No. 23 (the “FAC”)) of Plaintiffs Henk Meyers and Glenn Ginoza
`(collectively, “Plaintiffs”), transfer venue to the Northern District of California,
`and/or strike Plaintiffs’ class allegations. This Motion is made following the
`conference of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7-3 which took place on May 26, 2021.
`Declaration of Whitty Somvichian ¶ 2.
`Pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens, Defendants request that this
`Court dismiss this case on the basis that the parties are bound by a mandatory forum
`selection clause that requires suit to be brought in Santa Clara County, California; in
`the alternative, Defendants request that this Court transfer this case to the Northern
`District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure 12(b)(6), Defendants request that this Court dismiss, with prejudice, each
`of Plaintiffs’ claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
`Pursuant to Rule 12(f), Defendants request that this Court strike all class allegations
`from the FAC. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the FAC, Transfer Venue, and/or
`Strike Class Allegations is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the
`accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the concurrently filed
`declarations and the exhibits attached thereto, and all pleadings and papers on file in
`this matter, and upon such matters as may be presented to the Court at the time of
`hearing or otherwise.
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`DEFS.’ MOT. TO DISMISS THE FAC,
`TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`CASE NO. 2:21-CV-01767
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 32 Filed 06/03/21 Page 9 of 30 Page ID #:216
`
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`1.
`Should Plaintiffs’ FAC be dismissed under the doctrine of forum non
`conveniens or, alternatively, transferred to the Northern District of California under
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), where Plaintiffs agreed to a forum selection clause requiring
`that this action be brought in a state or federal court in Santa Clara County,
`California?
`2.
`Should Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim and Unfair Competition Law
`(“UCL”) claim be dismissed where both claims are based on an alleged violation of
`California Civil Code § 1749.45 et seq. (the “Gift Certificate Law”) but Google falls
`within the “multiple sellers” exemption of Civil Code § 1749.45(a)?
`3.
`Should Plaintiffs’ UCL claim be dismissed for the additional reason that
`Plaintiffs allege an adequate remedy at law in their breach of contract claim?
`4.
`Should Plaintiffs’ UCL claim under the fraudulent prong be dismissed
`for the second additional reason that Plaintiffs’ averments of fraud fail to meet the
`heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b)?
`5.
`Should Plaintiffs’ claim of breach of the implied covenant of good faith
`and fair dealing be dismissed where the claim is merely duplicative of the breach of
`contract claim?
`6.
`Should the Court strike Plaintiffs’ class allegations where the FAC
`demonstrates that a class action cannot be maintained on the facts alleged?
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`Google Play is Google’s online marketplace where consumers can buy apps,
`games, and various forms of media from thousands of different sellers. Consumers
`can make payments on Google Play in various ways, including by redeeming Google
`Play gift cards. Google invests significant resources to prevent fraud and abuse on
`Google Play to protect both consumers and sellers. For Google Play gift cards,
`Google employs various security measures to prevent fraudulent transactions,
`
`DEFS.’ MOT. TO DISMISS THE FAC,
`TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`CASE NO. 2:21-CV-01767
`
`2
`
`I.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 32 Filed 06/03/21 Page 10 of 30 Page ID #:217
`
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`including requesting additional information to verify certain gift card redemptions.
`Plaintiffs’ FAC involves these security measures. In essence, Plaintiffs
`complain that Google’s system for detecting suspected fraud is not 100% accurate
`and sometimes flags what they call “bona fide” holders of Google Play gift cards.
`Plaintiffs allege that in some circumstances bona fide holders are unable to redeem
`their gift cards due to Google’s security measures, in violation of the Gift Certificate
`Law. Based on this alleged refusal by Google to redeem gift cards purportedly held
`by “bona fide” holders or purchasers in violation of the Gift Certificate Law,
`Plaintiffs brings three causes of action against Google, for violation of the UCL,
`breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
`As an initial matter, the terms of service that govern Google Play gift cards
`incorporate a valid forum selection clause that requires any dispute with Google to
`be “resolved exclusively in the federal or state courts of Santa Clara County,
`California, USA.” This term should be enforced, and the case should be dismissed
`on forum non conveniens grounds, or in the alternative, transferred to the Northern
`District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
`If the Court opts to address the merits, Plaintiffs’ FAC should be dismissed in
`its entirety for failure to state any viable claim. The UCL and breach of contract
`claims should be dismissed for the fundamental reason that Google Play gift cards
`are not governed by the Gift Certificate Law. On its face, the Gift Certificate Law
`does not apply to gift cards—like Google Play gift cards—that are “usable with
`multiple sellers.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1749.45(a). Second, under governing Ninth
`Circuit authority, Plaintiffs’ UCL claim fails for the additional reason that Plaintiffs
`allege an adequate remedy at law in their breach of contract claim. Third, Plaintiffs’
`UCL claim under the fraudulent prong further fails because it does not meet the
`heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b). Lastly, Plaintiffs’ claim of breach of
`the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing should be dismissed because it
`merely duplicates the breach of contract claim.
`
`
`3
`
`DEFS.’ MOT. TO DISMISS THE FAC,
`TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`CASE NO. 2:21-CV-01767
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 32 Filed 06/03/21 Page 11 of 30 Page ID #:218
`
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`In addition to the defects of Plaintiffs’ individual claims, the FAC seeks to
`certify a class that on its face could never comply with Rule 23 because it would
`require individualized examination of each attempted gift card redemption to
`determine if the holder was “bona fide.” Even if Plaintiffs’ individual claims can
`proceed, the Court should strike all class allegations from the FAC under Rule 12(f).
`Requiring the parties to undergo a protracted class certification briefing process
`would impose an unfair burden on Google given that the defects of the proposed class
`are evident on the face of the FAC.
`II.
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`A. Google Play
`Google Play is Google’s online platform through which sellers can sell apps,
`games, movies, and other digital content. Dkt. No. 23 (“FAC”) ¶¶ 2, 26, 27 n.3.
`According to Google’s 2019 Google Play Public Policy Report, referenced in the
`FAC, there were over 2 billion active monthly Google Play users and over 115 billion
`installs from the Google Play Store in 2018. Declaration of Whitty Somvichian
`(“Somvichian Decl.”), Ex. A (“GPR”) at 9.1 The Google Play platform encompasses
`multiple sellers across 150 countries. Id. at 11. To purchase content on Google Play,
`a consumer must have a Google Play account and set up a payment method in their
`Google Payments account.
`B. Google Play Gift Cards
`One of the payment methods consumers can use on Google Play is a Google
`Play gift card. FAC ¶¶ 2, 27. Google Play gift cards can be purchased at over
`875,000 retail locations. Id. ¶ 27. As Plaintiffs acknowledge, consumers seeking to
`
`1 Google requests the Court take judicial notice of Exhibit A to the Somvichian Decl.
`as incorporated by reference in paragraph 27 of the FAC, available at
`https://kstatic.googleusercontent.com/files/de5640816a4d4099f246b64864c038fee1
`eac9a9e944b3f31e993e9a315d9f49aa813f27b92be0fe1070f52975476b8fa15529cc2
`ec314bebcde73f91331f77e. See FAC ¶ 27 n.3. This report is proper for judicial
`notice. See Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007)
`(when ruling on a motion to dismiss “courts must consider … documents
`incorporated into the [FAC] by reference”) (emphasis added).
`
`DEFS.’ MOT. TO DISMISS THE FAC,
`TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`CASE NO. 2:21-CV-01767
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 32 Filed 06/03/21 Page 12 of 30 Page ID #:219
`
`
`use Google Play gift cards are bound to the Google Play Gift Card and Prepaid Play
`Balance
`Terms
`of
`Service
`(“Gift Card
`TOS”),
`available
`at
`https://play.google.com/about/card-terms/. FAC ¶ 29; id. ¶ 65 (alleging contractual
`privity between Google and purchasers or other recipients of Google Play gift cards);
`Declaration of Joseph Mills (“Mills Decl.”), Ex. C.2 The Gift Card TOS provides
`that “[l]imits may apply to redemption and use” of Google Play gift cards. Gift Card
`TOS (Mills Decl., Ex. C) ¶ 2. The Gift Card TOS also explains:
`
`4. Fraud. GAZ [Google Arizona LLC] and GPC [Google
`Payment Corp.] are not responsible if a Gift Card or Credit
`is lost, stolen, destroyed or used without your permission.
`GAZ and GPC will have the right to close customer
`accounts and bill alternative forms of payment if a
`fraudulently obtained Gift Card or Credit is redeemed
`and/or used to make purchases on Google Play.
`
`Gift Card TOS ¶ 4. Thus, Google Play gift card users agree that Google may limit
`the redemption and use of the gift cards, especially if fraudulent or suspicious
`activity is detected. See FAC ¶¶ 29, 8. Google in fact does employ various security
`measures to detect and prevent suspicious or fraudulent transactions involving
`Google Play gift cards, including requesting additional information to verify certain
`gift cards flagged by Google’s security systems. Id. ¶¶ 4-5, 30-31.
`In addition to making its policy against suspicious or fraudulent activity clear
`in the provisions of the Gift Card TOS, Google also warns Google Play users to
`beware of gift card scams, by providing information on common schemes and
`providing a direct channel for consumers to report suspected fraud. See
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`2 Google requests the Court take judicial notice of Exhibit C to the Mills Decl. as
`incorporated by reference in paragraph 29 of the FAC. This webpage providing the
`Gift Card TOS is proper for judicial notice. See Tellabs, 551 U.S. at 322; see also
`Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005) (taking judicial notice where
`“the plaintiff’s claim depends on the contents of [the] document” and the parties do
`not dispute the document’s authenticity).
`
`
`5
`
`DEFS.’ MOT. TO DISMISS THE FAC,
`TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`CASE NO. 2:21-CV-01767
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 32 Filed 06/03/21 Page 13 of 30 Page ID #:220
`
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`Somvichian Decl., Ex. B.3
`C.
`Plaintiffs’ Allegations
`Plaintiff Henk Meyers (“Meyers”) alleges he purchased two Google Play gift
`cards–one for $50 from a Speedway store in La Puente, CA on October 26, 2020 and
`one for $10 from a Speedway store in Baldwin Park, CA on November 10, 2020.
`FAC ¶¶ 11, 36. Meyers alleges that when he tried to redeem his gift cards, Google’s
`system asked him to answer some questions, send images of his gift cards, and
`provide receipts for his purchases. Id. ¶¶ 5-6, 36. After Meyers submitted the
`requested information, he received the following message from Google: “We have
`noticed some inconsistencies with your account and the information you provided us;
`because of this we are unable to help you redeem these gift cards.” Id. ¶ 36. Meyers
`alleges he then contacted Google to ask for a refund and a Google representative
`denied his request. Id.
`Plaintiff Glenn Ginoza (“Ginoza”) alleges he purchased a $100 gift card from
`a CVS store in Huntington Beach, California. Id. ¶¶ 12, 37. Ginoza alleges that
`when he tried to redeem his gift card, Google’s system asked him to provide
`additional information, including the receipts for his purchase and images of his gift
`card. Id. ¶ 37. Ginoza alleges that like Meyers, after he provided his receipts, he
`received the following message from Google on March 23, 2021: “We have noticed
`some inconsistencies with your account and the information you provided us;
`because of this we are unable to help you redeem these gift cards.” Id. Ginoza further
`alleges that he contacted Google customer service representatives on March 23, 2021
`and April 7, 2021, but his request to redeem his gift card was denied. Id.
`Plaintiffs surmise, from complaints posted on Google support webpages, that
`other card holders “either receiv[ed] a similar denial message or no explanation for
`
`3 Google requests the Court take judicial notice of Exhibit B to the Somvichian Decl.
`as incorporated by reference in paragraph 27 of the FAC, available at
`https://play.google.com/intl/en_us/about/giftcards/. This webpage is proper for
`judicial notice. See Tellabs, 551 U.S. at 322.
`
`
`6
`
`DEFS.’ MOT. TO DISMISS THE FAC,
`TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`CASE NO. 2:21-CV-01767
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 32 Filed 06/03/21 Page 14 of 30 Page ID #:221
`
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`Google’s refusal to redeem the cards at all.” Id. ¶ 32. Based on these allegations,
`Plaintiffs claim Google’s security measures are applied to “valid and bona fide” gift
`card holders and prevent redemption of valid gift cards in violation of California’s
`Gift Certificate Law. Id