Case 3:20-cv-06703-TSH Document 29 Filed 12/15/20 Page 1 of 32
`
`
`
`Ruby H. Kazi (CA 243872)
`Lily A. North (CA 260709)
`Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP
`One Montgomery, Suite 2700
`San Francisco, California 94104-4505
`Telephone: 628.600.2250
`Facsimile: 628.221.5828
`rkazi@beneschlaw.com
`lnorth@beneschlaw.com
`
`Emily N. Dillingham (pro hac vice)
`Lauren C. Tortorella (pro hac vice)
`Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP
`71 South Wacker Drive, Suite 1600
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: 312-212-4949
`edillingham@beneschlaw.com
`ltortorella@beneschlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant DOORDASH, INC.
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`Case No. 3:20-cv-6703-TSH
`LONA’S LITTLE EATS, LLC, on its own
`behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION;
`situated,
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`DOORDASH, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`DOORDASH, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Date: January 21, 2021
`Time: 10:00 a.m.
`Location: Courtroom G - 15th Floor
`Judge: The Hon. Thomas S. Hixson
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`DOORDASH, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:20-cv-6703-TSH
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:20-cv-06703-TSH Document 29 Filed 12/15/20 Page 2 of 32
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`PAGE 2 
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 10 
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................................................................... 11 
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED (L.R. 7-4(A)(3)) ............................................................ 12 
`LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................................... 12 
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................................ 13 
`I. 
`PLAINTIFF FAILS TO STATE A LANHAM ACT CLAIM ..................................................... 13 
`A. 
`Plaintiff Has Not Pled a False Statement .......................................................................... 14 
`
`B. 
`
`DoorDash Did Not Make the Alleged Statements Within a Commercial
`Advertisement ................................................................................................................... 16 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`DoorDash’s Checkout Page is not “Commercial Speech” ................................... 17 
`
`DoorDash Is Not In Competition With Plaintiff ................................................... 17 
`
`DoorDash Did Not Make the Alleged Statements to Influence
`Consumers to Buy Its Product .............................................................................. 18 
`
`Plaintiff Did Not Adequately Allege That DoorDash’s Purported Statements
`Actually Deceived Or Had a Tendency to Deceive Customers ........................................ 19 
`
`Plaintiff Has Not Sufficiently Alleged Injury ................................................................... 20 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`II. 
`
`PLAINTIFF’S FAL CLAIM FAILS ............................................................................................ 22 
`A. 
`Plaintiff’s FAL Claim Fails Because Its Lanham Act Claim Fails ................................... 22 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Bring a FAL Claim ............................................................... 23 
`
`Plaintiff Has Not Adequately Pled a Claim under the FAL .............................................. 23 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Plaintiff has not adequately pled an “untrue or misleading” statement. ............... 24 
`
`DoorDash’s statements do not constitute “publicly disseminated
`advertising.” .......................................................................................................... 25 
`
`Plaintiff has failed to allege it actually relied on DoorDash’s purported
`statements to its detriment. ................................................................................... 26 
`
`Plaintiff has not sufficiently pled injury. .............................................................. 26 
`
`
`
`2
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`DOORDASH, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:20-cv-6703-TSH
`
`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
`
`

`

`
`
`III. 
`
`Case 3:20-cv-06703-TSH Document 29 Filed 12/15/20 Page 3 of 32
`
`PLAINTIFF’S UCL CLAIM FAILS ............................................................................................ 27 
`A. 
`Plaintiff’s UCL Claim Fails Because Its Lanham Act Claim Fails .................................. 27 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Bring a UCL Claim ............................................................... 27 
`
`Plaintiff Has Not Adequately Pled a UCL Claim ............................................................. 28 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Plaintiff Has Not Alleged that DoorDash’s Statements Were
`“Unlawful” ............................................................................................................ 29 
`
`Plaintiff Has Not Alleged That DoorDash’s Conduct was “Unfair” .................... 29 
`
`Plaintiff Has Not Sufficiently Pled that DoorDash’s Statements Were
`“Fraudulent” .......................................................................................................... 30 
`
`PLAINTIFF CANNOT SEEK INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ............................................................... 31 
`IV. 
`CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................... 32 
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`DOORDASH, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:20-cv-6703-TSH
`
`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 3:20-cv-06703-TSH Document 29 Filed 12/15/20 Page 4 of 32
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`23andMe, Inc. v. Ancestry.com DNA, LLC,
`356 F. Supp. 3d 889 (N.D. Cal. 2018), aff’d, 778 F. App’x 966 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ..............................26
`
`Alfasigma USA, Inc. v. First Databank, Inc.,
`398 F. Supp. 3d 578 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ...........................................................................................18, 19
`
`AlterG, Inc. v. Boost Treadmills LLC,
`388 F. Supp. 3d 1133 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .........................................................................................14, 30
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .......................................................................................................................11, 12
`
`Azare v. Gateway Genomics, LLC,
`2017 WL 1479184 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2017) ......................................................................................25
`
`Beasley v. Lucky Stores, Inc.,
`400 F. Supp. 3d 942 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ...........................................................................................24, 26
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .............................................................................................................................12
`
`Bernard v. Donat,
`2012 WL 525533 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2012) .......................................................................................17
`
`Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co.,
`20 Cal. 4th 163 (Cal. 1999) ............................................................................................................29, 30
`
`City of Los Angeles v. Lyons,
`461 U.S. 95 (1983) ...............................................................................................................................31
`
`Cleary v. News Corp.,
`30 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 1994) ...............................................................................................................27
`
`Clorox Co. v. Reckitt Benckiser Grp. PLC,
`398 F. Supp. 3d 623 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ...............................................................................23, 26, 28, 30
`
`Coastal Abstract Serv., Inc. v. First Am. Title Ins. Co.,
`173 F.3d 725 (9th Cir. 1999) ...................................................................................................16, 17, 19
`
`Cooper v. Pickett,
`137 F.3d 616 (9th Cir. 1997) ...............................................................................................................13
`
`
`
`4
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`DOORDASH, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:20-cv-6703-TSH
`
`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 3:20-cv-06703-TSH Document 29 Filed 12/15/20 Page 5 of 32
`
`
`
`Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,
`873 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2017), as amended on denial of reh’g en banc, 889 F.3d 956
`(9th Cir. 2018) ..........................................................................................................................14, 30, 31
`
`Deitz v. Comcast Corp.,
`2006 WL 3782903 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2006) .....................................................................................31
`
`Denbicare U.S.A., Inc. v. Toys “R” Us, Inc.,
`84 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 1996) ...............................................................................................................22
`
`Diva Limousine, Ltd. v. Uber Tech. Inc.,
`392 F. Supp. 3d 1074 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ...............................................................................................21
`
`DNA Sports Performance Lab, Inc. v. Major League Baseball,
`2020 WL 4430793 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2020) ................................................................................21, 26
`
`Erickson v. Pardus,
`551 U.S. 89 (2007) ...............................................................................................................................11
`
`Experian Information Solutions, Inc. v. Lifelock, Inc.,
`633 F. Supp. 2d 1104 (C.D. Cal. 2009) ...............................................................................................29
`
`Factory Direct Wholesale, LLC v. iTouchless Housewares & Products, Inc.,
`411 F. Supp. 3d 905 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .................................................................................................14
`
`Fareed Sephery-Fard v. Santa Clara Court,
`2018 WL 6025606 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2018) ....................................................................................13
`
`Halicki v. United Artists Comms., Inc.,
`812 F.2d 1213 (9th Cir. 1987) .............................................................................................................18
`
`Heartland Payment Sys., Inc. v. Mercury Payment Sys., LLC,
`2015 WL 3377662 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2015) .....................................................................................28
`
`Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. v. Mercury Payment Systems, LLC,
`2016 WL 304764 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2016) ........................................................................................13
`
`Hodgers -Durgin v. de la Vina,
`199 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 1999) .............................................................................................................31
`
`Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Euro-Pro Operating LLC,
`2014 WL 6892141 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2014) .................................................................................22, 27
`
`Jack Russell Terrier Network of N. Ca. v. Am. Kennel Club,
`407 F3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2005) ..............................................................................................................21
`
`Japan Telecom, Inc. v. Japan Telecom Am. Inc.,
`287 F.3d 866 (9th Cir. 2002) ...............................................................................................................27
`
`
`
`5
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`DOORDASH, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:20-cv-6703-TSH
`
`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 3:20-cv-06703-TSH Document 29 Filed 12/15/20 Page 6 of 32
`
`
`
`Kwan Software Eng’g, Inc. v. Foray Techs., LLC,
`2014 WL 572290 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2014) .......................................................................................22
`
`Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court,
`51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011) ...................................................................................................................23, 26
`
`L.A. Taxi Cooperative, Inc. v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`114 F. Supp. 3d 852 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .....................................................................................22, 27, 28
`
`LegalForce, Inc. v. LegalZoom.com, Inc.,
`2019 WL 1170779 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2019) .....................................................................................21
`
`Luxul Tech. Inc. v. Nectarlux, LLC,
`78 F. Supp. 3d 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .................................................................................................20
`
`Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,
`519 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) .............................................................................................................11
`
`Marolda v. Symantec Corp.,
`672 F. Supp. 2d 992 (N.D. Cal. 2009) .................................................................................................12
`
`MGA Entm’t, Inc. v. Dynacraft BSC, Inc.,
`2018 WL 2448123 (C.D. Cal. May 30, 2018) .....................................................................................22
`
`Moss v. Infinity Ins. Co.,
`197 F. Supp. 3d 1191 (N.D. Cal. 2016) .........................................................................................24, 26
`
`Nguyen v. Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc.,
`2020 WL 5371328 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2020) ................................................................................11, 12
`
`Obesity Research Inst., LLC v. Fiber Research Int’l, LLC,
`165 F. Supp. 3d 937 (S.D. Cal. 2016) ..................................................................................................26
`
`Openwave Messaging, Inc. v. Open-Xchange, Inc.,
`2016 WL 2621872 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2016) .......................................................................................17
`
`Patt v. Antech Diagnostics, Inc.,
`2019 WL 6654078 (C.D. Cal. July 30, 2019) ......................................................................................29
`
`Power Quality & Elec. Sys., Inc. v. BP West Coast Prods. LLC,
`2017 WL 119041 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2017) ..................................................................................24, 25
`
`Rheumatology Diagnostics Lab. Inc. v. Aetna,
`2015 WL 1744330 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2015) .....................................................................................18
`
`Rosen v. Uber Technologies, Inc.,
`164 F.Supp.3d 1165 (N.D. Cal 2016) ..................................................................................................28
`
`
`
`6
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`DOORDASH, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:20-cv-6703-TSH
`
`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 3:20-cv-06703-TSH Document 29 Filed 12/15/20 Page 7 of 32
`
`
`
`In re Seagate Tech. LLC Litig.,
`233 F. Supp. 3d 776 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ...........................................................................................24, 31
`
`Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co.,
`108 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 1997) .......................................................................................................14, 20
`
`Swanson v. EMC Mortg. Corp.,
`No. 09–1507, 2009 WL 4884245 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2009) ................................................................30
`
`Tagtrends, Inc. v. Nordstrom, Inc.,
`2013 WL 12126741 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2013) .............................................................................17, 19
`
`Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co.,
`2 Cal. App. 4th 153 (1991) ..................................................................................................................13
`
`Tortilla Factory, LLC v. Better Booch, LLC,
`2018 WL 4378800 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2018) ....................................................................................14
`
`TransFresh Corp. v. Ganzerla Assocs., Inc.,
`862 F. Supp. 2d 1009 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .........................................................................................15, 25
`
`Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA,
`317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................12, 20, 24
`
`VP Racing Fuels, Inc. v. General Petroleum Corp.,
`673 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (E.D. Cal. 2009)................................................................................................25
`
`Wells Fargo & Co. v. ABD Ins. & Fin. Servs., Inc.,
`758 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2014) .............................................................................................................14
`
`Williams v. Apple, Inc.,
`449 F. Supp. 3d 892 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2020) ..................................................................................24
`
`Wilson v. Hewlett–Packard Co.,
`668 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2012) .............................................................................................................29
`
`Statutes
`
`False Advertising Law, California Business & Professions Code §§ 17500 et seq. ......................... passim
`
`Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a) ...................................................................................................... passim
`
`Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq. ...................... passim
`
`Court Rules
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) ................................................................................................. passim
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) ........................................................................................9, 13, 23
`
`
`
`7
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`DOORDASH, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:20-cv-6703-TSH
`
`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 3:20-cv-06703-TSH Document 29 Filed 12/15/20 Page 8 of 32
`
`
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) .......................................................................................... passim
`
`Local Rule 7-4(a)(3) ..................................................................................................................................12
`
`
`
`
`8
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`DOORDASH, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:20-cv-6703-TSH
`
`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 3:20-cv-06703-TSH Document 29 Filed 12/15/20 Page 9 of 32
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) AND 12(b)(6)
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 21, 2021 at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the
`matter may be heard in the courtroom of the Honorable Thomas S. Hixson, United States Magistrate
`Judge, located at San Francisco Courthouse Courtroom G, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San
`Francisco, California 94102, Defendant DoorDash, Inc. (“DoorDash”) will and hereby does move for an
`order dismissing all claims alleged in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
`Through this motion, and for the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum of Points and
`Authorities, DoorDash respectfully requests that this Court dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety
`and with prejudice. This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the Memorandum of
`Points and Authorities, the records and files in this action, and any other matter the Court may consider.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`DOORDASH, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:20-cv-6703-TSH
`
`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 3:20-cv-06703-TSH Document 29 Filed 12/15/20 Page 10 of 32
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In this putative class action, Plaintiff Lona’s Lil Eats (“Plaintiff” or “Lona’s”) brings claims for
`purported violations of the Lanham Act, California’s false advertising statute, and California’s unfair
`competition statute, alleging that Defendant DoorDash, Inc. (“DoorDash”) incorrectly designated Plaintiff
`as “unavailable” or “closed” on its website, and that DoorDash somehow suggested that it had a business
`relationship with Plaintiff. DoorDash moved to dismiss because Lona’s had not properly alleged any of
`these claims, and Lona’s tacitly admitted that DoorDash was correct by filing an Amended Complaint.
`But even after amending, Plaintiff still does not meet its pleading burden; presumably because it cannot.
`Lona’s does not state when the claimed mis-designations occurred, where they were displayed, who saw
`them, or how they led to a reduction in business. Indeed, Plaintiff has neither alleged any basis for its
`claim that it suffered any damages as a result of DoorDash’s conduct nor presented any coherent theory
`of damages.
`Crucially, Plaintiff still does not assert a viable claim under any of its legal theories. Each of
`Plaintiff’s causes of action sounds in fraud, yet Plaintiff does not allege facts sufficient to state viable
`claims under any pleading theory, let alone with the particularity required by Federal Rule of Civil
`Procedure 9(b), even with its newly-added factual assertions. Further, Plaintiff lacks standing to bring
`claims under California’s false advertising and unfair competition statutes. And Plaintiff wholly lacks
`standing to seek injunctive relief.
`DoorDash takes concerns about its platform seriously. When a restaurant brings a problem to
`DoorDash’s attention, DoorDash acts to correct the situation and aims to ensure that all parties are satisfied
`with the outcome. Such matters are most efficiently and effectively addressed through cooperation, not
`federal class action litigation. But Plaintiff did not bring its concerns to DoorDash. Instead, Plaintiff now
`indicates in its Amended Complaint that it had concerns in June, 2020, but, rather than bringing those
`concerns to DoorDash’s attention, Lona’s said nothing for three months, then filed a lawsuit. And after
`reviewing DoorDash’s initial Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff opted not to respond, but instead to amend its
`complaint. And the Amended Complaint does not rectify any of the deficiencies found in the original
`Complaint.
`DoorDash therefore has no choice but to ask this Court yet again to measure Plaintiff’s claims
`10
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`DOORDASH, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:20-cv-6703-TSH
`
`
`
`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 3:20-cv-06703-TSH Document 29 Filed 12/15/20 Page 11 of 32
`
`
`
`against governing standards and controlling precedent. DoorDash is confident that in doing so, this Court
`will find that Plaintiff’s allegations come up short. DoorDash therefore respectfully requests that this
`Court dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety and with prejudice.
`STATEMENT OF FACTS1
`DoorDash is a technology company that provides a web-based platform connecting consumers to
`local restaurants. (Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 26 (“Am. Compl.”), ¶ 9.) Customers place orders with
`restaurants through DoorDash’s platform; DoorDash then connects those restaurants with third-party
`delivery service providers, who pick up orders and deliver them to the consumers. (Id.) DoorDash
`provides these services for both “Partner Restaurants,” with which it has contractual agreements, and non-
`partner restaurants. (Id.)
`Plaintiff, which is not a Partner Restaurant, alleges that at some point in time, a customer could
`begin the process of placing an order for Plaintiff’s food through DoorDash’s platform but could not
`complete that order, because DoorDash’s platform would indicate that Plaintiff was “unavailable” by
`virtue of being “out of the delivery area” or “too far” from the potential customer’s location. (Id. ¶¶ 15,
`23.) Plaintiff also alleges that it was at some point listed on DoorDash’s platform as “closed.” (Id. ¶ 15.)
`Plaintiff for the first time in its Amended Complaint now alleges that DoorDash also misrepresents that
`Lona’s is “not accepting pick-up orders” (id. ¶¶ 27, 30), even though “Lona’s provides curb-side, pick-up
`service.” (Id. ¶ 33.) According to Plaintiff, DoorDash redirected “would-be Lona’s business to its Partner
`Restaurants.” (Id. ¶ 34.) Plaintiff also alleges that DoorDash “suggest[s] in its advertising” that it “has a
`business relationship with Plaintiff” and that it is authorized to provide information regarding [Plaintiff’s]
`services when in fact no such authorization exists. (Id. ¶ 56(a).) According to Plaintiff, DoorDash’s
`alleged misrepresentations “suggest[ed] that Lona’s is not an option” for potential customers, causing
`those customers to place orders through DoorDash’s “Partner Restaurants” instead. (Id. ¶ 32.) Further,
`Plaintiff now alleges that DoorDash competes directly with any restaurants “that offer their own online
`
`
`1 “In considering a motion to dismiss, the court accepts factual allegations in the complaint as true and construes the pleadings
`in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Nguyen v. Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc., 2020 WL 5371328, at *4 (N.D.
`Cal. Sept. 8, 2020) (Hixson, J.) (citing Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008);
`Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007)). “However, ‘the tenet that a court must accept a complaint’s allegations as true
`is inapplicable to threadbare recitals of a cause of action’s elements, supported by mere conclusory statements.’” Nguyen, 2020
`WL 5371328, at *4 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
`
`11
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`DOORDASH, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:20-cv-6703-TSH
`
`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 3:20-cv-06703-TSH Document 29 Filed 12/15/20 Page 12 of 32
`
`
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`
`delivery and/or pick-up services.” (Id. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff also admits that it has known about the alleged
`designations since June 2020 (see id. ¶ 17), but it does not and cannot allege that it ever attempted to
`resolve its issues with DoorDash other than through litigation.
`Rather than reaching out to DoorDash to see if the issue could be resolved efficiently and amicably,
`Plaintiff filed this putative nationwide class action on September 24, 2020. (Dkt. No. 1.) After DoorDash
`filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, Lona’s filed an Amended Complaint on December 1, 2020.
`(Dkt. No. 26.) Plaintiff brings claims against DoorDash for: false advertising under Section 43(a) of the
`Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a); violation of California’s False Advertising Law, California Business &
`Professions Code §§ 17500 et seq. (“FAL”); and California’s Unfair Competition Law, California
`Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq. (“UCL”).
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED (L.R. 7-4(A)(3))
`Whether the Court should dismiss the Lanham Act claim for failure to state a claim.
`Whether the Court should dismiss the FAL claim for lack of standing.
`Whether the Court should dismiss the FAL claim for failure to state a claim.
`Whether the Court should dismiss the UCL claim for lack of standing.
`Whether the Court should dismiss the UCL claim for failure to state a claim.
`Whether the Court should dismiss the request for injunctive relief due to lack of standing.
`LEGAL STANDARD
`To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff must plead “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) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “Plausibility does
`not mean probability, but it requires ‘more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.’”
`Nguyen v. Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc., 2020 WL 5371328, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2020) (Hixson, J.)
`(quoting Iqbal, 56 U.S. at 687).
`Moreover, “[i]n alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances
`constituting fraud or mistake.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). And “when the claim is ‘grounded in fraud,’ the
`pleading of that claim as a whole is subject to Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement.” Marolda v. Symantec
`Corp., 672 F. Supp. 2d 992, 996 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (quoting Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097,
`
`12
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`DOORDASH, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:20-cv-6703-TSH
`
`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 3:20-cv-06703-TSH Document 29 Filed 12/15/20 Page 13 of 32
`
`
`
`1104 (9th Cir. 2003)). “Rule 9(b) requires the plaintiff to allege the ‘who, what, when, where, and how’
`of the alleged fraudulent conduct.” Heartland Payment Sys., Inc. v. Mercury Payment Sys., LLC, 2016
`WL 304764, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2016) (quoting Cooper v. Pickett, 137 F.3d 616, 627 (9th Cir. 1997))
`(granting motion to dismiss Lanham Act, FAL, and UCL claims for failure to plead each with specificity
`as required by Rule 9(b)). And “[t]he requirement of specificity in a fraud action against a corporation
`requires the plaintiff to allege the names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations,
`their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written.”
`Id. (quoting Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 2 Cal. App. 4th 153, 157 (1991)).
`A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) tests the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.
`Dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(1) if a plaintiff’s allegations fail to establish that the Court has
`subject matter jurisdiction over the action. Fareed Sephery-Fard v. Santa Clara Court, 2018 WL
`6025606, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2018) (“On a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), which
`challenges a court’s subject matter jurisdiction over a claim, the burden is on the plaintiff, as the party
`asserting jurisdiction, to establish that subject matter jurisdiction exists.”). A plaintiff seeking injunctive
`relief in a putative class action must have Article III standing to seek that relief, which requires a plausible
`allegation of potential future harm to the plaintiff. Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 873 F.3d 1103,
`1113 (9th Cir. 2017), as amended on denial of reh’g en banc, 889 F.3d 956, 969-70 (9th Cir. 2018).
`Further, when “any amendment would be futile, there is no need to prolong the litigation by
`permitting further amendment.” Chaset v. Fleer/Skybox Int’l, LP, 300 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002)
`(affirming district court’s dismissal with no leave to amend where plaintiffs could not plead injury); In re
`Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig., 258 F. Supp. 3d 1037, 1041
`(N.D. Cal. 2017) (“[I]f in an amended complaint the plaintiff is unable to cure noted shortcomings, the
`Court can reasonably conclude that further amendment would be futile and deny leave to further amend.”).
`The same is true here: there is no amendment by which Lona’s could cure its still-existing pleading
`deficiencies. This Court should dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety and with prejudice.
`ARGUMENT
`Plaintiff Fails to State a Lanham Act Claim
`To state a claim under the Lanham Act, Plaintiff must plead that: (1) DoorDash made a false
`13
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`DOORDASH, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 3:20-cv-6703-TSH
`
`I.
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`2