throbber
Case 3:20-cv-08437-LB Document 13 Filed 01/04/21 Page 1 of 33
`
`
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
` Shon Morgan (Bar No. 187736)
` (shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com)
` John W. Baumann (Bar No. 288881)
` (jackbaumann@quinnemanuel.com)
`865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90017
`Telephone:
`(213) 443-3000
`Facsimile:
`(213) 443-3100
`
` Cristina Henriquez (Bar No. 317445)
` (cristinahenriquez@quinnemanuel.com)
`555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
`Redwood Shores, California 94065
`Telephone:
`(650) 801-5000
`Facsimile:
`(650) 801-5000
`
`Attorneys for ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS
`INC., ANCESTRY.COM INC., and
`ANCESTRY.COM LLC
`
`MEREDITH CALLAHAN and
`LAWRENCE GEOFFREY ABRAHAM, on
`behalf of themselves and all others similarly
`situated,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
` CASE NO. 3:20-cv-08437-LB
`
`NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
`AND MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT
`TO FRCP 12 AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF
`CIVIL PROCEDURE § 425.16 AND
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT;
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`
`Hearing Date: February 18, 2021
`Hearing Time: 9:30 a.m.
`Location: San Francisco Courthouse, Courtroom B
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS INC., a
`Virginia Corporation; ANCESTRY.COM,
`INC., a Delaware Corporation;
`ANCESTRY.COM LLC, a Delaware
`Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1
`through 50, inclusive,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`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 No. 3:20-cv-08437-LB
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08437-LB Document 13 Filed 01/04/21 Page 2 of 33
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ........................................................................................................2
`BACKGROUND AND MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS IN PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT .............3
`LEGAL STANDARDS ......................................................................................................................4
`ARGUMENT .....................................................................................................................................6
`PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS FAIL BECAUSE THEY DID NOT SUFFER ANY
`I.
`INJURY AS A RESULT OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS ............................................6
`PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS UNDER CIVIL CODE SECTION 3344 AND THE UCL
`FAIL BECAUSE THE CHALLENGED CONDUCT FALLS UNDER THE
`“PUBLIC AFFAIRS” EXCEPTION ...................................................................................11
`PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE FORECLOSED BY SECTION 230 OF THE
`COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT ............................................................................13
`PLAINTIFFS’ SECTION 3344 AND DERIVATIVE UCL CLAIM ARE
`PREEMPTED BY SECTION 301 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT .......................................16
`PLAINTIFFS CANNOT PLAUSIBLY STATE A CLAIM FOR INTRUSION
`UPON SECLUSION ............................................................................................................18
`NO STANDALONE CLAIM FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT EXISTS ............................20
`VI.
`VII. THE COURT SHOULD STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ PRAYER FOR STATUTORY
`DAMAGES BECAUSE PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT, AND CANNOT, ALLEGE
`MENTAL ANGUISH ..........................................................................................................20
`VIII. THE COURT SHOULD STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ RESTITUTION-BASED
`CLAIMS BECAUSE AN ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW EXISTS .............................21
`THE COURT SHOULD STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS PURSUANT TO
`CALIFORNIA’S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE .......................................................................22
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................24
`
`
`V.
`
`IX.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`Case No. 3:20-cv-08437-LB
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08437-LB Document 13 Filed 01/04/21 Page 3 of 33
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page
`
`Aldrin v. Topps Co., Inc.,
` 2011 WL 4500013 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2011) ............................................................. 12, 13
`Andrade v. Arby’s Rest. Grp., Inc.,
` 2015 WL 6689475 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2015) ..................................................................... 13
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
` 556 U.S. 662 (2009) ............................................................................................................. 5
`Barrett v. Rosenthal,
` 40 Cal. 4th 33 (2006) .......................................................................................................... 22
`Beck v. McDonald,
` 848 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................ 9
`Bodnar v. Cty. of Riverside,
` 2020 WL 2542871 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2020), report and recommendation
`adopted, 2020 WL 2542617 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2020) .......................................................... 8
`Bosley Med. Inst., Inc. v. Kremer,
` 403 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................ 5
`Caraccioli v. Facebook, Inc.,
` 167 F. Supp. 3d 1056 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ............................................................................. 14
`Caraccioli v. Facebook, Inc.,
` 700 F. App'x 588 (9th Cir. 2017) ....................................................................................... 13
`Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc.,
` 339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................... 13, 14
`Carlisle v. Fawcett Publications, Inc.,
` 201 Cal. App. 2d 733 (1962) .............................................................................................. 11
`Cohen v. Facebook,
` 798 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ............................................................................... 9
`Ctr. for Med. Progress v. Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am.,
` 139 S. Ct. 1446 (2019) ......................................................................................................... 6
`DC Comics v. Pac. Pictures Corp.,
` 706 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................................ 22
`Del Vecchio v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
` 2012 WL 1997697 (W.D. Wash. June 1, 2012) ................................................................. 10
`Dora v. Frontline Video, Inc.,
` 15 Cal. App. 4th 536 (1993) ......................................................................................... 22, 23
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`Case No. 3:20-cv-08437-LB
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08437-LB Document 13 Filed 01/04/21 Page 4 of 33
`
`
`
`Dutta v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
` 895 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2018) .............................................................................................. 6
`Ebeid v. Facebook, Inc.,
` 2019 WL 2059662 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2019) ..................................................................... 13
`Endemol Entm’t B.V. v. Twentieth Television Inc.,
` 1998 WL 785300 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 1998) ..................................................................... 17
`Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co.,
` 166 F.3d 642 (4th Cir. 1999) ................................................................................................ 5
`Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com, LLC,
` 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................... 15, 16
`Felix v. State Comp. Ins. Fund,
` 2007 WL 3034444 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2007) ...................................................................... 20
`Fleet v. CBS, Inc.,
` 50 Cal. App. 4th 1911 (1996) ............................................................................................. 17
`Folgelstrom v. Lamps Plus, Inc.,
` 195 Cal. App. 4th 986 (2011) ............................................................................................. 20
`Four Navy Seals v. Associated Press,
` 413 F. Supp. 2d 1136 (S.D. Cal. 2005) .............................................................................. 18
`Fraley v. Facebook, Inc.,
` 830 F. Supp. 2d 785 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ......................................................................... 15, 16
`Fus v. CafePress, Inc.,
` 2020 WL 7027653 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 30, 2020) ....................................................................... 8
`FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas,
` 493 U.S. 215 (1990) ............................................................................................................. 5
`Gates v. Discovery Commc’ns, Inc.,
` 34 Cal. 4th 679 (2004) ........................................................................................................ 23
`Gionfriddo v. Major League Baseball,
` 94 Cal. App. 4th 400 (2001) ............................................................................................... 24
`Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood,
` 441 U.S. 91 (1979) ............................................................................................................... 4
`Goddard v. Google, Inc.,
` 640 F. Supp. 2d 1193 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ............................................................................. 14
`In re Google, Inc. Privacy Policy Litig.,
` 2013 WL 6248499 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2013) ..................................................................... 10
`In re Google, Inc. Privacy Policy Litig.,
` 58 F. Supp. 3d 968 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ................................................................................. 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`Case No. 3:20-cv-08437-LB
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08437-LB Document 13 Filed 01/04/21 Page 5 of 33
`
`
`
`Gordon v. F.B.I.,
` 388 F. Supp. 2d 1028 (N.D. Cal. 2005) ............................................................................. 18
`Guglielmi v. Spelling–Goldberg Productions,
` 25 Cal. 3d 860 (1979) ......................................................................................................... 11
`Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc.,
` 47 Cal. 4th 272 (2009) ........................................................................................................ 20
`Hicks v. Richard,
` 39 Cal. App. 5th 1167 (2019) ............................................................................................. 23
`Jackson v. Loews Hotels, Inc.,
` 2019 WL 2619656 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2019) ......................................................................... 8
`Jones v. Dirty World Entm’t Recordings LLC,
` 755 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. 2014) .............................................................................................. 14
`Jules Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada, Inc.,
`
`617 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................. 17
`Jurin v. Google Inc.,
` 695 F. Supp. 2d 1117 (E.D. Cal. 2010) .............................................................................. 13
`KEMA, Inc. v. Koperwhats,
` 2010 WL 3464737 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2010) ..................................................................... 21
`Kimzey v. Yelp! Inc.,
` 836 F.3d 1263 (9th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................ 14
`Kodadek v. MTV Networks, Inc.,
` 152 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 1998) ............................................................................................ 17
`Low v. LinkedIn Corp.,
` 900 F. Supp. 2d 1010 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ............................................................................. 20
`Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,
` 504 U.S. 555 (1992) ................................................................................................... 4, 6, 10
`Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC,
` 715 F.3d 254 (9th Cir. 2013) ........................................................................................ 22, 24
`Maloney v. T3Media, Inc.,
` 853 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2017) ...................................................................................... 16, 17
`Mayron v. Google LLC,
` 54 Cal. App. 5th 566 (2020) ................................................................................................. 6
`Med. Lab. Mgmt. Consultants v. Am. Broad. Companies, Inc.,
` 306 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 2002) .............................................................................................. 19
`Miller v. Collectors Universe, Inc.,
` 159 Cal. App. 4th 988 (2008) ....................................................................................... 20, 21
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`Case No. 3:20-cv-08437-LB
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08437-LB Document 13 Filed 01/04/21 Page 6 of 33
`
`
`
`Mirfasihi v. Fleet Mortg. Corp.,
` 2007 WL 2066503 (N.D. Ill. July 17, 2007), aff’d, 551 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 2008) .............. 8
`Moreno v. Hanford Sentinel, Inc.,
` 172 Cal. App. 4th 1125 (2009) ....................................................................................... 8, 18
`New Kids On The Block v. News Am. Pub., Inc.,
` 745 F. Supp. 1540 (C.D. Cal. 1990), aff’d, 971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992) ................... 11, 12
`Perkins v. Linkedin Corp.,
` 53 F. Supp. 3d 1222 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ............................................................................... 21
`Pierce v. Kernan,
` 2017 WL 4621252 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2017) ..................................................................... 18
`Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. Progress,
` 890 F.3d 828 (9th Cir.), amended, 897 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2018) ...................................... 5
`Polydoros v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.,
` 67 Cal. App. 4th 318 (1997) ............................................................................................... 18
`Porch v. Masterfoods USA, Inc.,
` 364 F. App'x 365 (9th Cir. 2010) ....................................................................................... 13
`Raines v. Byrd,
` 521 U.S. 811 (1997) ............................................................................................................. 4
`Romero v. Securus Techs., Inc.,
` 216 F. Supp. 3d 1078 (S.D. Cal. 2016) ................................................................................ 7
`Rondberg v. McCoy,
` 2009 WL 5184053 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2009) ...................................................................... 7
`Sarver v. Chartier,
` 813 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 2016) .............................................................................................. 19
`Sarver v. Hurt Locker LLC,
` 2011 WL 11574477 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2011) .................................................................. 19
`Shulman v. Group W Prod., Inc.,
` 18 Cal. 4th 200 (1998) ........................................................................................................ 11
`Shulman v. Grp. W Prods., Inc.,
` 18 Cal. 4th 200 (1998) ........................................................................................................ 18
`Silha v. ACT, Inc.,
` 2014 WL 11370440 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 2, 2014), aff’d, 807 F.3d 169 (7th Cir. 2015) ........... 10
`Sipple v. Chronicle Publ’g Co.,
` 154 Cal. App. 3d 1040 (1984) ........................................................................................ 8, 18
`Slivinsky v. Watkins-Johnson Co.,
` 221 Cal. App. 3d 799 (1990) ................................................................................................ 6
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`Case No. 3:20-cv-08437-LB
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08437-LB Document 13 Filed 01/04/21 Page 7 of 33
`
`
`
`Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
`962 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir.), opinion amended and superseded on denial of reh’g,
`971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................... 21
`Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,
` 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) ......................................................................................................... 6
`Stern v. Weinstein,
` 2010 WL 11459791 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2010), aff’d, 512 F. App’x 701 (9th Cir.
`2013) .................................................................................................................................... 19
`Summers v. Earth Island Inst.,
` 555 U.S. 488 (2009) ............................................................................................................. 5
`Todd v. Tempur-Sealy Int’l, Inc.,
` 2015 WL 1006534 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2015) ....................................................................... 8
`Toney v. L’Oreal USA, Inc.,
` 406 F.3d 905 (7th Cir. 2005) ........................................................................................ 16, 17
`Varnado v. Midland Funding LLC,
` 43 F. Supp. 3d 985 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ........................................................................... 18, 19
`In re VTech Data Breach Litig.,
` 2017 WL 2880102 (N.D. Ill. July 5, 2017) .......................................................................... 8
`White v. Starbucks Corp.,
` 497 F. Supp. 2d 1080 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ............................................................................. 13
`Gates v. Discovery Commc’ns, Inc.,
`
`34 Cal. 4th 679 (2004) ..................................................................................................... 8, 23
`
`Statutory Authorities
`17 U.S.C. § 102 ............................................................................................................................... 17
`17 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................................................... 17
`17 U.S.C. § 301(a) ............................................................................................................................. 3
`47 U.S.C. § 230 ................................................................................................................... 13, 14, 24
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 ........................................................................................ 1, 4, 13, 21
`Cal. Civ. Code § 3344 ....................................................................................... 1, 2, 4, 11, 13, 18, 21
`Cal. Code Civ. P. § 425.16 ............................................................................................ 1, 3, 5, 22, 24
`
`Rules and Regulations
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 .......................................................................................................................... 1, 5
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vi-
`Case No. 3:20-cv-08437-LB
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08437-LB Document 13 Filed 01/04/21 Page 8 of 33
`
`
`
`Additional Authorities
`2 Entertainment Law 3d: Legal Concepts and Business Practices § 12:6 ...................................... 23
`Privacy Torts § 6:9 .......................................................................................................................... 11
`Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 47 ............................................................................ 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vii-
`Case No. 3:20-cv-08437-LB
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08437-LB Document 13 Filed 01/04/21 Page 9 of 33
`
`
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on February 18, 2021 at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as
`counsel may be heard, in Courtroom B of the above entitled Court, defendants Ancestry.com
`Operations Inc., Ancestry.com Inc., and Ancestry.com LLC (collectively, “Ancestry”), by and
`through their attorneys and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) hereby
`move the Court to dismiss with prejudice plaintiffs’ complaint in its entirety, to strike plaintiffs’
`claim for statutory damages pursuant to California Civil Code section 3344, to strike plaintiffs’
`claim for restitution to the extent it is premised on the claim for violation of California Business &
`Professions Code section 17200, and to strike the complaint pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP
`statute, Cal. Code Civ. P. section 425.16.
`Ancestry moves to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiffs lack Article III standing and the
`complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Ancestry moves to strike
`plaintiffs’ prayer for statutory damages on the grounds plaintiffs have failed to allege any mental
`anguish resulting from the alleged violations. Ancestry moves to strike plaintiffs’ prayer for
`restitution on the grounds such recovery is unavailable under the UCL where there is an otherwise
`adequate remedy at law. Ancestry moves to strike plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to California’s
`anti-SLAPP statute on the grounds that plaintiffs’ suit arises from protected activity and plaintiffs
`cannot demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the merits.
`This motion is based upon this Notice, the following memorandum of points and
`authorities, the pleadings and records on file herein, and on such other and further argument and
`evidence as may be presented at the time of the hearing, and all matters of which this Court may
`take judicial notice.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`Case No. 3:20-cv-08437-LB
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08437-LB Document 13 Filed 01/04/21 Page 10 of 33
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
` Ancestry operates the world’s largest subscription collection of genealogy databases,
`encompassing more than 27 billion historical records. Much of this data is available for free; even
`more can be accessed by members. Subscribers can review, for example, US census records,
`military documents, and historical immigration records that range from passenger lists for most
`American ports to border-crossing files. Ancestry also makes available millions of digitized family
`and local history books, city directories, newspapers dating to the 18th century, and school
`yearbooks.
`The access to yearbooks prompted this novel—and misguided—lawsuit. The two named
`plaintiffs object that pictures and information from their school yearbooks is viewable on
`Ancestry.com, and seek to advance a broad class action asserting right of publicity and privacy-
`based theories. The claims are intuitively ill-founded—like all individuals pictured in yearbooks,
`these plaintiffs long ago consented to public distribution of these photos without restriction.
`Indeed, the local libraries of each named plaintiff offer these same yearbooks for anyone to access,
`including online versions available with a few keystrokes. Numerous additional yearbook
`archives abound on the internet. (Infra at footnotes 2-4, 8).
`Given that common experience undermines plaintiffs’ supposed indignation over the
`possible viewing of their school photos, it is unsurprising their theories cannot find legal
`grounding. Multiple bases foreclose these claims at the pleading stage:
`• No Injury. Neither plaintiff can plausibly allege any actual injury. The benign
`yearbook excerpts are widely available, and plaintiffs contend only that Ancestry
`offered access to these already-public records. No harm could plausibly result from the
`mere existence of plaintiffs’ records in Ancestry’s archive.
`• The Public Affairs Exception. State law recognizes the “right to publicity” must yield
`to constitutional free speech interests. The yearbook excerpts here fall squarely within
`the “public affairs” exception to California Civil Code section 3344, which protects the
`type of information gathering for public distribution in which Ancestry engages.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`Case No. 3:20-cv-08437-LB
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08437-LB Document 13 Filed 01/04/21 Page 11 of 33
`
`
`
`• Section 230 Immunity. To foster the public informational interest in online resources,
`the Communications Decency Act immunizes companies from claims arising from the
`publication of content created by third parties. Here, plaintiffs concede the content at
`issue emanates from third parties and is merely hosted on Ancestry’s website.
`• Copyright Preemption. The federal Copyright Act provides the exclusive means to
`protect copyrightable works such as photos and compilations. See 17 U.S.C. § 301(a).
`Here, plaintiffs allege no other use of their names or images apart from their mere
`appearance in excerpts they do not allege to have copyrighted. They cannot now
`circumvent the Act by asserting state-law claims.
`• No Intrusion Upon Seclusion. The yearbook information at issue belies any
`suggestion it is “private” or that publication would highly offend a reasonable person.
`It is public information (names, past physical appearances) in a medium intended for
`distribution (a school yearbook) and that continues to be publicly available (including
`through government
`libraries).
` And possible
`regret over
`teen hairstyles
`notwithstanding, no reasonable person could be “highly offended” by sharing a school
`portrait, nor as to plaintiff Callahan, by her admirable distinction as class valedictorian.
`For these reasons and others set forth below, plaintiffs’ claims fail pursuant to Rule 12. In
`addition, the Complaint must be stricken under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Code Civ. P.
`§ 425.16. This provision bars lawsuits that, like this one, arise from exercise of the defendant’s
`free-speech rights and for which plaintiffs cannot show a probability of success on the merits.
`BACKGROUND AND MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS IN PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`Ancestry is a genealogy company that provides users access to a variety of historical
`records to trace their family histories. See Ancestry.com. These sources include obituaries, family
`trees, marriage records, death records, military records, census records, local history books, and a
`variety of other records. See id. Some of these records have been collected by Ancestry, others
`are contributed by users who upload content. Many of the billions of records available on
`Ancestry.com have never been accessed by actual users, and exist “unseen” in virtual storage.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`Case No. 3:20-cv-08437-LB
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08437-LB Document 13 Filed 01/04/21 Page 12 of 33
`
`
`
`Here, plaintiffs’ claims are premised on Ancestry’s inclusion of certain yearbook records
`in Ancestry’s “Yearbook Database.” Specifically, plaintiff Abraham bases his claims on three
`yearbook records accessible to Ancestry users. ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 25-26. The first is Mr.
`Abraham’s sixth-grade yearbook portrait from 1998, the second a photograph of his school’s track
`team from 1999, and the third his seventh-grade yearbook portrait from 1999. Id. at ¶ 27.
`Similarly, plaintiff Callahan bases her claims on 26 records “copied from [her high school’s]
`yearbooks between the years of 1996 and 1999[.]” Id. at ¶ 37. Among these are her freshman and
`senior portraits, and yearbook pages reflecting participation in student council, the “National
`Honors Society,” and her designation as valedictorian. Id. at ¶ 40. Neither plaintiff contends their
`pictures or information were actually ever viewed by any Ancestry member. Neither plaintiff
`articulates or attempts to quantify any monetary injury from Ancestry’s storage of these images
`and information. Plaintiffs further concede they were unaware Ancestry maintained these records
`until their “investigation” of this lawsuit. See id. at ¶¶ 24, 35.
`Based on Ancestry’s inclusion of these decades-old yearbook records in its database,
`plaintiffs assert four claims on behalf of a putative class of California residents: (1) violation of
`California Civil Code § 3344 (California’s “right to publicity statute”); (2) violation of California
`Business & Professions Code § 17200; (3) intrusion upon seclusion; and (4) unjust enrichment.
`Id. at ¶¶ 58, 66-89.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`Article III Standing. To establish standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, a
`plaintiff bears the burden of proving an “injury in fact” that is causally linked to the conduct
`complained of and would be redressed by a decision in plaintiffs’ favor. Lujan v. Defenders of
`Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). These requirements are “the irreducible constitutional
`minimum” for standing. Id. It is “settled that Congress cannot erase Article III’s standing
`requirements by statutorily granting the right to sue to a plaintiff who would not otherwise have
`standing.” Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 820 n.3 (1997) (citing Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of
`Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 100 (1979)). The “requirement of injury in fact is a hard floor of Article
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`Case No. 3:20-cv-08437-LB
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08437-LB Document 13 Filed 01/04/21 Page 13 of 33
`
`
`
`III jurisdiction that cannot be removed by statute.” Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488,
`497 (2009).
`When a defendant raises a Rule 12(b)(1) challenge to the asserted basis for subject matter
`jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden to prove subject matter jurisdiction exists. See FW/PBS,
`Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990). A Rule 12(b)(1) motion is properly granted when “the
`material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a
`matter of law.” Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation
`marks omitted).
`Failure to State a Claim. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
`“sufficient factual matter” to state a claim for relief that is “plausible” on its face.” Ashcroft v.
`Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim is plausible when factual allegations permit the
`“reasonable inference” that the defendant is liable for the conduct alleged. Id. “Threadbare
`recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
`suffice.” Id. Facts that are “merely consistent with” liability fail to state a claim. Id. at 678
`(quotations omitted).
`Motion to Strike Pursuant to California’s Anti-SLAPP Statute. California enacted its
`anti-SLAPP statute in response to the “disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill
`the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of
`grievances.” Cal. Code Civ. P. § 425.16(a). To prevail on a motion to strike, the defendant need
`only make a “prima facie showing that the plaintiff’s suit arises from an act in furtherance of
`defendant’s right of petition or free speech. . . . The defendant need not show that plaintiff’s suit
`was brought with the intention to chill defendant’s speech; the plaintiff’s intentions are ultimately
`beside the point.” Bosley Med. Inst., Inc. v. Kremer, 403 F.3d 672, 682 (9th Cir. 2005)
`(quotations, citations omitted). The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to establish a probability of
`success on the merits. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 425.16(b)(1).
`Where an anti-SLAPP motion is based on the insufficiency of the pleadings, “a district
`court should apply the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard and consider whether a
`claim is properly stated.” Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. Progress, 890
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`Case No. 3:20-cv-08437-LB
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08437-LB Document 13 Filed 01/04/21 Page 14 of 33
`
`
`
`I.
`
`F.3d 828, 834 (9th Cir.), amended, 897 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2018), and cert. denied sub nom. Ctr.
`for Med. Progress v. Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., 139 S. Ct. 1446 (2019).

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

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

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

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

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

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

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

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

Become a Member

One Moment Please

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

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

Your document is on its way!

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

Sealed Document

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

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


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket