Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 33 Filed 07/01/21 Page 1 of 35 Page ID #:298
`
`
`
`Richard D. McCune (State Bar No. 132124)
`rdm@mccunewright.com
`David C. Wright (State Bar No. 177468)
`dcw@mccunewright.com
`MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
`3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100
`Ontario, California 91761
`Telephone: (909) 557-1250
`Facsimile:
`(909) 557 1275
`
`[Additional counsel listed in signature block]
`
`Attorneys for Henk Meyers and Glenn Ginoza
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`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
`
`
`
`Henk Meyers and Glenn Ginoza,
`Individually and on Behalf of All
`Others Similarly Situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`ALPHABET, INC., GOOGLE, LLC,
`GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP., and
`GOOGLE ARIZONA LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
`DISMISS THE COMPLAINT,
`TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR
`STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`Date: August 5, 2021
`
`Time: 1:00 p.m.
`
`Dept: Courtroom 6D, 6th Floor
`
`Judge: Hon. Fernando M. Olguin
`
`Amended Complaint Filed: May 12, 2021
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPP. TO DEFENDANTS’ MOT. TO DISMISS, TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`Case No. 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 33 Filed 07/01/21 Page 2 of 35 Page ID #:299
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................. 4
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................................... 6
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 6
`
`I.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ CHOICE OF VENUE CONTROLS ............................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The Factors Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) Weigh In Plaintiffs’ Favor ............. 6
`
`Plaintiffs Did Not Assent To The Forum Selection Clause At Issue Here ... 8
`
`Alternatively, The Forum Selection Clause Is Unconscionable .................. 11
`
`In Any Event, Dismissal Is Not The Proper Remedy Under A Motion To
`Transfer ........................................................................................................ 11
`
`12
`
`II.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE ADEQUATELY PLED ........................................ 12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`III.
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs’ UCL Claims Are Adequately Pled.............................................. 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs Have Adequately Pled Claims Under The UCL’s “Unlawful”
`Prong .................................................................................................. 12
`
`Plaintiffs Have Adequately Pled Claims Under The UCL’s “Unfair”
`Prong .................................................................................................. 15
`
`Plaintiffs Have Adequately Pled Claims Under The UCL’s
`“Fraudulent” Prong ............................................................................ 17
`
`4.
`
`Dismissal Under the Sonner Doctrine Is Premature at this Juncture 18
`
`Plaintiffs’ Breach of Contract Claims are Adequately Pled ........................ 20
`
`Plaintiffs’ Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
`Claims Are Adequately Pled ........................................................................ 22
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS SHOULD NOT BE
`STRICKEN............................................................................................................. 23
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`IV. ALTERNATIVELY, AMENDMENT SHOULD BE PERMITTED .................... 25
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPP. TO DEFENDANTS’ MOT. TO DISMISS, TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`Case No. 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 33 Filed 07/01/21 Page 3 of 35 Page ID #:300
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Am. W. Door & Trim v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co.,
`2015 WL 1266787 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2015) ................................................................. 24
`
`
`Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc.,
`24 Cal.4th 83 (2000) ........................................................................................................ 11
`
`
`Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Texas,
` 571 U.S. 49 (2013) ....................................................................................................... 8, 12
`
`Bates v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co.,
`993 F. Supp. 2d 1318 (D. Or. 2014) ................................................................................ 25
`
`
`Beyer v. Symantec Corp.,
`333 F. Supp. 3d 966 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ............................................................................. 18
`
`
`Boschma v. Home Loan Ctr., Inc.,
`198 Cal. App. 4th 230 (2011) .......................................................................................... 18
`
`
`Brazil v. Dell Inc.,
` 585 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ........................................................................... 25
`
`Bureerong v. Uvawas,
`922 F. Supp. 1450 (C.D. Cal. 1996) ................................................................................ 24
`
`
`California Cap. Ins. Co. v. Maiden Reinsurance N. Am., Inc.,
`472 F. Supp. 3d 754 (C.D. Cal. 2020) ............................................................................. 24
`
`
`Cappello v. Walmart Inc.,
`394 F.Supp.3d 1015 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ............................................................................. 16
`
`
`Careau & Co. v. Sec. Pac. Bus. Credit, Inc.,
`222 Cal. App. 3d 1371, 272 Cal. Rptr. 387 (Ct. App. 1990), as modified on denial of
`reh’g ................................................................................................................................. 23
`
`
`Carma Devs. (Cal.), Inc. v. Marathon Dev. California, Inc.,
`2 Cal. 4th 342 (1992) ....................................................................................................... 22
`
`
`Cel-Tech Commc’n., Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.,
`20 Cal.4th 163 (1999) .......................................................................................... 12, 16, 17
`
`ii
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPP. TO DEFENDANTS’ MOT. TO DISMISS, TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`Case No. 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page(s)
`
`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 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 33 Filed 07/01/21 Page 4 of 35 Page ID #:301
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Centon Elecs., Inc. v. Target Corp.,
`2009 WL 10674428 (C.D. Cal. June 18, 2009) ................................................................. 9
`
`
`Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Savage,
`611 F.2d 270 (9th Cir. 1979) ............................................................................................. 6
`
`
`Cordon v. Wachovia Mortg., a Div. of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`776 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ........................................................................... 17
`
`
`Creative Tech., Ltd. v. Aztech Sys. Pte., Ltd.,
`61 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 1995) ............................................................................................. 11
`
`
`DePuy Synthes Sales Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`2019 WL 1601384 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2019) ..................................................................... 7
`
`
`Ecological Rights Found. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co.,
`713 F.3d 502 (9th Cir. 2013) ........................................................................................... 15
`
`
`Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.,
`316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) ......................................................................................... 25
`
`
`Feldman v. Google, Inc.,
`513 F. Supp. 2d 229 (E.D. Pa. 2007) ............................................................................... 10
`
`
`Fitz v. NCR Corp.,
`118 Cal. App. 4th 702 (2004) .......................................................................................... 11
`
`
`Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon,
`457 U.S. 147 (1982) ......................................................................................................... 25
`
`
`Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l LLC,
`856 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 2017) ........................................................................................... 17
`
`
`Greater Yellowstone Coal. v. Bosworth,
`180 F. Supp. 2d 124 (D.D.C. 2001) ................................................................................. 10
`
`
`Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert,
`330 U.S. 501 (1947) ......................................................................................................... 10
`
`
`Hendrix v. Disc. Gold Brokers, Inc.,
`2014 WL 12691620 (C.D. Cal. July 21, 2014) ................................................................ 21
`
`
`
`iii
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPP. TO DEFENDANTS’ MOT. TO DISMISS, TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`Case No. 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 33 Filed 07/01/21 Page 5 of 35 Page ID #:302
`
`
`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
`
`In re Adobe Systems, Inc. Privacy Litigation,
`66 F.Supp.3d 1197 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ............................................................................... 16
`
`
`In re JUUL Labs, Inc., Mktg., Sales Pracs., & Prod. Liab. Litig.,
`497 F. Supp. 3d 552 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ............................................................................. 20
`
`
`In re Wal–Mart Stores, Inc.,
`505 F.Supp.2d 609 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ............................................................................... 24
`
`
`In re Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`893 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (D. Nev. 2012) .............................................................................. 10
`
`
`Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Wash.,
`350 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 2003) ........................................................................................... 17
`
`
`Integritymessageboards.com v. Facebook, Inc.,
`2020 WL 6544411 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2020) .................................................................. 20
`
`
`IV Sols. Inc. v. United Healthcare Servs. Inc.,
`2012 WL 12894001 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2012) ................................................................. 6
`
`
`Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc.,
`211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................................. 7
`
`
`Jordan v. Paul Financial, LLC,
`285 F.R.D. 435 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ..................................................................................... 17
`
`
`Kazemi v. Payless Shoesource Inc., No. C,
`2010 WL 963225 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2010) .................................................................. 24
`
`
`Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2018) ........................................................................................... 15
`
`
`Khorrami v. Lexmark Int’l Inc.,
`2007 WL 8031909 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2007) ................................................................ 24
`
`
`Klein v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.,
` 202 Cal.4th 1342, 1376 (2012) (2012) ........................................................................... 16
`
`
`Knevelbaard Dairies v. Kraft Foods, Inc.,
`232 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................................. 6
`
`27
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`iv
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPP. TO DEFENDANTS’ MOT. TO DISMISS, TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`Case No. 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 33 Filed 07/01/21 Page 6 of 35 Page ID #:303
`
`
`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
`
`Knievel v. ESPN,
`393 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2005) ......................................................................................... 15
`
`
`L.A. Mem’l Coliseum v. NFL,
`89 F.R.D. 497 (C.D. Cal. 1981) ......................................................................................... 7
`
`
`Long v. Provide Com., Inc.,
`245 Cal. App. 4th 855 (2016) ............................................................................................ 9
`
`
`Mercury Cas. Co. v. Scottsdale Indem. Co.,
`156 Cal. App. 4th 1212, 68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 123 (2007) ..................................................... 21
`
`
`Mier v. CVS Pharm., Inc.,
`2021 WL 1559367 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2021) ................................................................. 20
`
`
`Milliner v. Bock Evans Fin. Couns., Ltd.,
`114 F. Supp. 3d 871 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ............................................................................. 11
`
`
`Moran v. Prime Healthcare Mgmt., Inc.,
`3 Cal.App.5th 1131 (2016) .............................................................................................. 16
`
`
`Morgan v. AT & T Wireless Servs., Inc.,
`177 Cal.App.4th 1235 (2009) .......................................................................................... 18
`
`
`Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc.,
`469 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 2006) ......................................................................................... 11
`
`
`Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc.,
`763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) ........................................................................................... 9
`
`
`OptoLum, Inc. v. Cree, Inc.,
`244 F. Supp. 3d 1005 (D. Ariz. 2017) ............................................................................... 7
`
`
`Partti v. Palo Alto Med. Found. for Health Care, Rsch. & Educ., Inc.,
`2015 WL 6664477 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2015) .................................................................. 23
`
`
`Perez v. CitiMortgage, Inc.,
`2014 WL 2609656 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2014) ................................................................. 24
`
`
`Pinel v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC,
`814 F. Supp. 2d 930 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ............................................................................. 18
`
`27
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`v
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPP. TO DEFENDANTS’ MOT. TO DISMISS, TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`Case No. 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 33 Filed 07/01/21 Page 7 of 35 Page ID #:304
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno,
`454 U.S. 235 (1981) ........................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`Plascencia v. Lending 1st Mortgage,
`583 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ........................................................................... 12
`
`
`Power Quality & Elec. Sys., Inc. v. BP W. Coast Prod. LLC,
`2017 WL 119041 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2017) .................................................................... 17
`
`
`Reinhardt v. Gemini Motor Transp.,
`879 F. Supp. 2d 1138 (E.D. Cal. 2012) ..................................................................... 22, 23
`
`
`Reynolds v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.,
`332 F. App'x 397 (9th Cir. 2009) ..................................................................................... 13
`
`
`Rojas-Lozano v. Google, Inc.,
`2015 WL 4779245 (D. Mass. Aug. 12, 2015) ................................................................. 10
`
`
`Rothman v. Equinox Holdings, Inc.,
`2021 WL 124682 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2021) .................................................................... 12
`
`
`Rothman v. Equinox Holdings, Inc.,
`2021 WL 1627490 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2021) ................................................................. 20
`
`
`Rudgayzer v. Google, Inc.,
`986 F. Supp. 2d 151 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) ............................................................................. 10
`
`
`Sachs v. Republic of Austria,
`737 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2013) ........................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`Salas v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.,
`
`2016 WL 7486600 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2016) ................................................................ 19
`
`
`Salas v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.,
`2017 WL 11084512 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2017) .......................................................... 19, 20
`
`
`Sanders v. Apple Inc.,
`672 F. Supp. 2d 978 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ............................................................................. 25
`
`
`Smith v. Nerium Int’l, LLC,
`2019 WL 3110027 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2019) ................................................................. 8, 9
`
`
`
`vi
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPP. TO DEFENDANTS’ MOT. TO DISMISS, TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`Case No. 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 33 Filed 07/01/21 Page 8 of 35 Page ID #:305
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Soliman v. Subway Franchisee Advert. Fund Tr., Ltd.,
`2021 WL 2324549 (2d Cir. June 8, 2021) ....................................................................... 10
`
`
`Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
`971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020) ................................................................................. 3, 19, 20
`
`
`Taleshpour v. Apple Inc.,
`2021 WL 1197494 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2021) ................................................................ 18
`
`
`Taylor v. 123RF LLC,
`2017 WL 8229624 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2017) ................................................................ 13
`
`
`United States ex rel. Lee v. Corinthian Colls.,
`655 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2011) ........................................................................................... 15
`
`
`Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena,
`592 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2010) ........................................................................................... 14
`
`
`Windsor Mills, Inc. v. Collins & Aikman Corp.,
`25 Cal. App. 3d 987 (1972) ............................................................................................... 9
`
`
`Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC,
`617 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010) ......................................................................................... 24
`
`
`Yerostathis v. A. Luisi, Ltd.,
`380 F.2d 377 (9th Cir. 1967) ........................................................................................... 12
`
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ..................................................................................................... Passim
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203 ......................................................................................... 20
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 ............................................................................... 1, 12, 16
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1749.5(a) ................................................................................... 2, 4, 13, 21
`
`Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1749.45(a) ............................................................................................... 4
`
`Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1749.5(b) & (c) ................................................................................. 4, 12
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1749.51................................................................................................ 4, 21
`
`
`
`vii
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPP. TO DEFENDANTS’ MOT. TO DISMISS, TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`Case No. 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 33 Filed 07/01/21 Page 9 of 35 Page ID #:306
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) ........................................................................................................... 14
`
`Other Authorities
`
`A.B. 2466 .................................................................................................................. 4, 13, 14
`
`S.B. 250 ................................................................................................................................. 5
`
`
`
`
`viii
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPP. TO DEFENDANTS’ MOT. TO DISMISS, TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`Case No. 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 33 Filed 07/01/21 Page 10 of 35 Page ID #:307
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Plaintiffs Henk Meyers and Glenn Ginoza (collectively “Plaintiffs”) respectfully
`
`submit this opposition to Defendants Alphabet, Inc., Google, LLC, Google Payment Corp.,
`
`and Google Arizona LLC’s (collectively, “Google” or “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss
`
`The Complaint, Transfer Venue, and Strike Class Allegations (“Motion”), ECF No. 32).1
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendants sell and market purportedly easy to redeem gift cards which may be used
`
`exclusively to purchase online software (a/k/a “app” or “application”) from Google,
`
`through what is called the “Google Play store.” Plaintiffs bought these gift cards—a $100
`
`gift card for Plaintiff Ginoza and two gift cards totaling $60 in value for Plaintiff Meyers.
`
`10
`
`However, Plaintiffs were deprived the entire value of their gift cards once they hit an
`
`11
`
`insurmountable wall Google purportedly places to ferret out fraud. Google’s algorithm,
`
`12
`
`i.e., the wall in question, flags redemption attempts by certain consumers, prompting them
`
`13
`
`to provide additional information, such as receipts and the location where these cards were
`
`14
`
`bought. Even after Plaintiffs complied with Google’s demands, Google refused to redeem
`
`15
`
`both Plaintiffs’ gift cards, because of undisclosed “inconsistencies” rendering Plaintiffs’
`
`16
`
`cards worthless.
`
`17
`
`Under California’s Gift Card law, Google Play gift cards are required to be cash
`
`18
`
`equivalents, meaning that they must either be redeemed, or replaced at no cost to the
`
`19
`
`purchaser or holder. This same law is incorporated in the terms and conditions governing
`
`20
`
`the gift cards (the “Terms and Conditions”), meaning that Defendants’ failure to redeem
`
`21
`
`Plaintiffs’ gift cards is not only a violation of Plaintiffs’ statutory right of redemption, but
`
`22
`
`it is also a breach of the Terms and Conditions. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have brought
`
`23
`
`viable claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§
`
`24
`
`17200, et seq. (the “UCL”), as well as claims for breach of contract, and breach of the
`
`25
`
`implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`1
`Unless otherwise noted, the following conventions apply: (1) all “¶” references are
`to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Class Action Complaint, ECF No. 23; (2) all emphases are
`added; (3) all internal citations and quotations are omitted; and (4) all references to “Rule”
`are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`1
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPP. TO DEFENDANTS’ MOT. TO DISMISS, TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`Case No. 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 33 Filed 07/01/21 Page 11 of 35 Page ID #:308
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`In turn, Defendants have moved to (1) transfer the case to the Northern District of
`
`California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and/or dismiss under the forum non conveniens
`
`doctrine; (2) seek dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims under Rule 12(b)(6); and (3) strike
`
`Plaintiffs’ class action allegations under Rule 12(f). Defendants’ Motion must be denied in
`
`toto. First, with respect to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the factors weighed by
`
`courts favor keeping the case in this District, and therefore, Plaintiffs’ choice of venue
`
`should not be disturbed. Defendants’ argument relies on a forum selection clause that
`
`Plaintiffs did not assent to, and therefore should not be enforced. This clause is nowhere in
`
`the text of the gift cards’ Terms and Conditions. To find the clause that Defendants rely
`
`10
`
`on, a consumer would have to ferret out one of six hyperlinks in the Terms and Conditions
`
`11
`
`to find Google Play’s terms of service, and then sort through another nineteen hyperlinks
`
`12
`
`to find Google’s terms of service containing the forum selection clause. Alternatively, this
`
`13
`
`clause is unconscionable and should not be enforced.
`
`14
`
`With respect to their motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), Defendants’ arguments
`
`15
`
`should be rejected. First, regarding Plaintiffs’ UCL and breach of contract claims,
`
`16
`
`Defendants argue that the multiple seller exception under Cal. Civ. Code § 1749.5(a)
`
`17
`
`applies to them because their gift cards are “usable” with multiple sellers, and therefore,
`
`18
`
`the California Gift Card Law does not apply to them. Not so. Google’s gift card Terms
`
`19
`
`and Conditions reflect that the gift cards are only redeemable with Google Play—not with
`
`20
`
`any other seller. Defendants attempt to escape this by mischaracterizing extrinsic evidence
`
`21
`
`that is improper to consider under Rule 12(b)(6). Additionally, assuming arguendo that the
`
`22
`
`multiple seller exception applies, Plaintiffs’ claims under the “unfair” prong of the UCL do
`
`23
`
`not require a statutory violation, and Defendants’ conduct is the very type of activity that
`
`24
`
`the California Gift Card Law was intended to prevent. Defendants have failed to address
`
`25
`
`this claim, and therefore, their motion to dismiss this claim should be denied.
`
`26
`
`Additionally, Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs’ claims under the UCL’s
`
`27
`
`fraudulent prong fail because they failed to plead Plaintiffs’ reliance with particularity
`
`28
`
`under Rule 9(b). This argument misconstrues Plaintiffs’ claims under this prong as a
`
`
`
`2
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPP. TO DEFENDANTS’ MOT. TO DISMISS, TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`Case No. 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 33 Filed 07/01/21 Page 12 of 35 Page ID #:309
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`misrepresentation claim, rather than an omissions claim prompted by Defendants’ failure
`
`to disclose facts going to the central feature of the cards to Plaintiffs—redemption. Here,
`
`Google should have disclosed the arduous redemption steps required and the full-stop that
`
`may occur as a result of Google’s unilateral decision to prompt more information from
`
`Plaintiffs and to invalidate Plaintiffs’ gift cards.
`
`Defendants also cite Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834, 845 (9th Cir.
`
`2020) to argue that Plaintiffs’ UCL claims for restitution should be dismissed because there
`
`is an already adequate remedy at law in Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim.
`
`Notwithstanding that this argument assumes a viable breach of contract claim, which
`
`10
`
`Defendants seek to dismiss, dismissal under this argument is premature without discovery.
`
`11
`
`Indeed, Sonner is a wholly distinguishable case decided on the eve of trial and where a
`
`12
`
`plaintiff tried to game her claims to deprive the defendant the right to a trial by jury—facts
`
`13
`
`absent here. Thus, post-Sonner, several courts have found it premature to outright dismiss
`
`14
`
`UCL claims at this juncture. In any event, this argument ignores that Plaintiffs seek an
`
`15
`
`injunction under the UCL to prevent Defendants from continuing their unlawful practices
`
`16
`
`in the future—a remedy that is only available under the UCL
`
`17
`
`As well, with respect to Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of the implied covenant of good
`
`18
`
`faith and fair dealing, Defendants assert these claims should be dismissed as duplicative of
`
`19
`
`Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims. However, Plaintiffs’ claims here are not merely
`
`20
`
`duplicative of the breach of contract claims—Plaintiffs allege additional conduct, such as
`
`21
`
`Defendants’ unilateral decision to use the algorithm to impede redemption and failure to
`
`22
`
`disclose to consumers the supposed “inconsistencies” that warranted invalidation of their
`
`23
`
`gift cards, that go beyond Defendants’ breach of contract.
`
`24
`
`Last, Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs’ class action allegations should be
`
`25
`
`denied because it is entirely premature at this juncture. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ claims can
`
`26
`
`be applied in a uniform manner across the class, given that the only things a class member
`
`27
`
`needs to prove is that they had a gift card, and Google denied redemption of that gift card.
`
`28
`
`
`
`3
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPP. TO DEFENDANTS’ MOT. TO DISMISS, TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`Case No. 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 33 Filed 07/01/21 Page 13 of 35 Page ID #:310
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that Defendants’ Motion be denied in its
`
`entirety.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Defendants operate an online store dubbed the “Google Play” store that allows
`
`consumers, such as Plaintiffs, to purchase various online applications as well as movies,
`
`games, and other media. ¶26. As part of this service, Defendants market gift cards that
`
`can only be redeemed and used at the Google Play store. ¶27. Defendants tout that the
`
`main draw of these gift cards is that they are easy to redeem and help their holders easily
`
`manage their spending. ¶28. Indeed, many consumers, especially millennials, buy these
`
`10
`
`gift cards for that exact reason. Id.
`
`11
`
`Defendants’ gift card Terms and Conditions—the subject contract—explicitly
`
`12
`
`incorporate California law. ¶29. Thus, the terms governing redemption of the gift cards
`
`13
`
`must comport with California’s Gift Card Law, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1749.45(a), 1749.5(b).
`
`14
`
`¶¶25, 64. The Gift Card Law mandates that any gift card “sold without an expiration date
`
`15
`
`is valid until redeemed or replaced.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1749.5(c). ¶25. The statute also
`
`16
`
`makes clear that redemption must be “in cash for [the card’s] cash value,” or that the card
`
`17
`
`be subject to replacement with a new gift certificate at no cost to the purchaser or holder.
`
`18
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1749.5(b); ¶25. Related to this provision, it is unlawful to “sell a gift
`
`19
`
`certificate to a purchaser that contains . . . [a]n expiration date.” Cal. Civ. Code §
`
`20
`
`1749.5(a)(1); ¶25. Id. Moreover, “[a]ny waiver of the provisions of this title is contrary to
`
`21
`
`public policy, and is void and unenforceable.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1749.51; ¶25.
`
`22
`
`The California Legislature recognized that gift cards like those sold by Defendants
`
`23
`
`“ought to retain all the characteristics of cash itself and remain valid in perpetuity,
`
`24
`
`assuming the continued existence in business of the retailer who issued the gift certificate”
`
`25
`
`Cal. Bill Analysis, A.B. 2466 Sen., 7/16/1996; ¶24. “[E]xpired gift certificates dash the
`
`26
`
`expectation of gift-givers and constitute an unfair windfall to retailers.” Cal. Bill Analysis,
`
`27
`
`A.B. 2466 Sen., 6/11/1996; ¶24. “The retailer has already received payment for the value
`
`28
`
`of the certificate.” Cal. Bill Analysis, A.B. 2466 Sen., 6/11/1996; ¶24. And this windfall
`
`
`
`4
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPP. TO DEFENDANTS’ MOT. TO DISMISS, TRANSFER VENUE, AND/OR STRIKE
`Case No. 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01767-FMO-MAA Document 33 Filed 07/01/21 Page 14 of 35 Page ID #:311
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`from consumers is significant: “$8.2 billion of value left on gift cards was not spent by
`
`consumers in 2006 alone.” Cal. Bill Analysis, S.B. 250 Assem., 6/26/2007; ¶24.
`
`Thus, the following requirements apply to Google’s gift cards: (1) Google’s gift
`
`cards must be valid until redeemed and replaced; (2) redemption must be for cash or the
`
`card’s cash value; (3) and Google’s gift cards cannot expire. ¶25. Google, however, has
`
`violated all three statutory requirements. ¶¶30-35.
`
`Plaintiffs each purchased Google Play gift cards, but when they attempted to redeem
`
`them, Google prompted them to provide more information regarding their purchases.
`
`¶¶31, 36-37. Fortunately, Plaintiffs kept their receipts—but likely numerous consumers