`
`
`
`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).