`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 4:21-cv-10001-HSG Document 32 Filed 03/18/22 Page 1 of 9
`
`John E. Schmidtlein (CA State Bar No. 163520)
`Carol J. Pruski (CA State Bar No. 275953)
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Telephone:
`(202) 434-5000
`Facsimile:
`(202) 434-5029
`Email:
`jschmidtlein@wc.com
`Email:
`cpruski@wc.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Google LLC, Alphabet Inc.,
`XXVI Holdings Inc., Sundar Pichai, and Eric Schmidt
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`
`Case No. 4:21-cv-10001-HSG
`GOOGLE LLC, ALPHABET INC., XXVI
`
`HOLDINGS, INC., SUNDAR PICHAI, AND
`ERIC SCHMIDT’S NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND MOTION TO COMPEL
`ARBITRATION; MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT THEREOF
`Hearing Date: August 11, 2022
`Time: 2:00 p.m.
`Place: Courtroom 2
`Judge: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
`
`
`CALIFORNIA CRANE SCHOOL, INC.,
`on behalf of itself and all others similarly
`situated,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC, ALPHABET INC., XXVI
`HOLDINGS INC., APPLE INC., TIM
`COOK, SUNDAR PICHAI, and ERIC
`SCHMIDT,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-10001-HSG Document 32 Filed 03/18/22 Page 2 of 9
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 11, 2022, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as
`this matter may be heard, either in Courtroom 2 of this Court, located on the 4th Floor of the United
`
`States Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, or by videoconference or teleconference,
`Google LLC, Alphabet Inc., XXVI Holdings Inc., Sundar Pichai, and Eric Schmidt (collectively,
`“Google Defendants”) will move the Court for an order compelling arbitration and dismissing or
`staying Plaintiff’s claims against Google Defendants.
`
`Google Defendants respectfully request an order compelling arbitration and dismissing all
`causes of action brought against them in the above-captioned matter. This Motion is based upon
`this Notice; the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities; any reply memorandum; the
`
`pleadings and files in this action; and such other matters Google Defendants may present at or before
`the hearing.
`
`DATED: March 18, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`By: /s/ John E. Schmidtlein
`
`John E. Schmidtlein (CA State Bar No. 163520)
`Carol J. Pruski (CA State Bar No. 275953)
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Telephone:
`(202) 434-5000
`Facsimile:
`(202) 434-5029
`Email:
`jschmidtlein@wc.com
`Email:
`cpruski@wc.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Google LLC, Alphabet Inc.,
`XXVI Holdings Inc., Sundar Pichai, and Eric Schmidt
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`Case No. 4:21-cv-10001-HSG
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-10001-HSG Document 32 Filed 03/18/22 Page 3 of 9
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
`I. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................ 2
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................... 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`Case No. 4:21-cv-10001-HSG
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 4:21-cv-10001-HSG Document 32 Filed 03/18/22 Page 4 of 9
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Adtrader, Inc. v. Google LLC, 2018 WL 1876950 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2018) ................................3
`
`AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) ......................................................2, 3, 5
`
`
`Garcia v. Comcast Cable Commc’n Mgmt. LLC,
`2017 WL 1210044 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2017) ...........................................................................4
`
`Kilgore v. KeyBank, N.A., 718 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2013) ...............................................................3
`
`Mohamed v. Uber Techs., Inc., 848 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2016) .......................................................3
`
`Mortensen v. Bresnan Comm’ns, 722 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2013) ....................................................2
`
`Shierkatz Rllp v. Square, Inc., 2015 WL 9258082 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2015) ................................4
`
`Tompkins v. 23andMe, Inc., 840 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2016) ........................................................3, 4
`
`Trudeau v. Google LLC, 349 F. Supp. 3d 869 (N.D. Cal. 2018) .........................................2, 3, 4, 5
`
`Ulbrich v. Overstock.Com, Inc., 887 F. Supp. 2d 924 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .........................................4
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`
`9 U.S.C. § 2 ..................................................................................................................................2, 3
`
`9 U.S.C. § 4 ......................................................................................................................................5
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ........................................................................................1
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 201 ..........................................................................................................2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`Case No. 4:21-cv-10001-HSG
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-10001-HSG Document 32 Filed 03/18/22 Page 5 of 9
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff entered into an agreement to individually arbitrate all disputes with Google—as well
`
`as any of Google’s parent companies and executives of those entities—relating to its participation in
`
`
`Google’s advertising programs and services. The enforceability of this arbitration provision has been
`
`repeatedly upheld by courts. Yet, Plaintiff nevertheless seeks to evade these contractual obligations
`
`by filing a purported class action against Google, its parent companies, and certain of its executives.
`
`Google respectfully moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to arbitrate its dispute, as it agreed.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The allegations in the Complaint are described in detail in the accompanying Defendants’ Joint
`
`
`Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As relevant to
`
`the instant motion, the Complaint alleges in conclusory fashion that Plaintiff, a crane operator
`
`certification company, purchased search advertisements on Google, and that the prices paid were
`
`inflated by an allegedly illegal agreement between Apple and Google. Compl. ¶¶ 45, 48, 139. The
`
`Complaint asserts claims against Google LLC, Alphabet Inc., XXVI Holdings Inc., Sundar Pichai, and
`
`Eric Schmidt (collectively, the “Google Defendants”), as well as Apple Inc. and Tim Cook. Id. ¶¶ 49,
`
`50-53.
`
`As is customary throughout the advertising industry, certain terms and conditions accompany
`
`an entity’s use of Google’s advertising services. These terms and conditions are contained in Google’s
`
`Advertising Program Terms of Service (“TOS”), which are presented to advertisers using Google’s
`
`services and available online for anyone, at any time, to review. Shadd Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5, 11. Plaintiff
`
`accepted the TOS in 2017 and 2018. Id. ¶¶ 13-16.
`
`The TOS explains, in the very first paragraph, that it “require[s] the use of binding individual
`
`arbitration to resolve disputes rather than jury trials or class actions.” Shadd Decl., Exs. A & D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 -
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`Case No. 4:21-cv-10001-HSG
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-10001-HSG Document 32 Filed 03/18/22 Page 6 of 9
`
`
`Specifically, the arbitration provision states that the parties “agree to arbitrate all disputes and claims
`
`. . . that arise out of or relate in any way to” Plaintiff’s participation in Google’s advertising programs
`
`and services. Shadd Decl., Exs. A & D, § 13(A). The provision further states that the agreement to
`
`arbitrate “is intended to be broadly interpreted and includes, for example: . . . claims brought under
`
`
`any legal theory.” Shadd Decl., Exs. A & D, § 13(A). And the provision expressly states that it applies
`
`to claims brought against “Google,” “Google parent companies, and the respective officers [and]
`
`directors” of those entities. Shadd Decl., Exs. A & D, § 13(A). Google provided Plaintiff the
`
`opportunity to opt out of this arbitration provision, and Plaintiff chose not to do so. Shadd Decl. ¶¶ 10,
`
`12, 15-16; see also id., Exs. A & D, § 13(F) (explaining opt out process).
`
`The Google Defendants request that the Court take judicial notice of the TOS and related
`
`
`documents, as specified in, and authenticated by, the attached Declaration of Courtney Shadd. See
`
`Trudeau v. Google LLC, 349 F. Supp. 3d 869, 876 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (taking judicial notice of the
`
`“TOS, the opt-out website, and the website at which advertisers accepted or declined the TOS,”
`
`because, inter alia, “they are not the subject of reasonable dispute and their authenticity is not in
`
`question” (citing FED. R. EVID. 201)), aff’d, 816 F. App’x 68 (9th Cir. 2020).
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Plaintiff “agree[d] to arbitrate all disputes and claims . . . that arise out of or relate in any way
`
`to” Google’s advertising programs. Shadd Decl., Exs. A & D, § 13(A). That legally valid agreement
`
`squarely covers the dispute raised here. The Court should grant Google Defendants’ motion to compel
`
`arbitration and dismiss or stay Plaintiff’s claims.
`
`Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) to “counter prevalent judicial refusal
`
`to enforce arbitration agreements,” Mortensen v. Bresnan Comm’ns, 722 F.3d 1151, 1157 (9th Cir.
`
`2013), and “ensure that private arbitration agreements are enforced according to their terms,” AT&T
`
`Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 344 (2011) (cleaned up). Section 2 of the FAA provides
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 -
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`Case No. 4:21-cv-10001-HSG
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 4:21-cv-10001-HSG Document 32 Filed 03/18/22 Page 7 of 9
`
`
`that written arbitration agreements “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such
`
`grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. This provision
`
`“reflects a strong policy in favor of arbitration.” Trudeau, 349 F. Supp. 3d at 874 (citing Concepcion,
`
`563 U.S. at 339). It “mandates that district courts shall direct the parties to proceed to arbitration on
`
`
`issues as to which an arbitration agreement has been signed.” Kilgore v. KeyBank, N.A., 718 F.3d
`
`1052, 1058 (9th Cir. 2013). And “[a]ny doubts about the scope of arbitrable issues, including
`
`applicable contract defenses, are to be resolved in favor of arbitration.” Tompkins v. 23andMe, Inc.,
`
`840 F.3d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 2016). Courts simply “determine (1) whether a valid agreement to
`
`arbitrate exists and, if it does, (2) whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue.” Kilgore,
`
`718 F.3d at 1058 (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, an analysis of both issues leads to
`
`
`arbitration.
`
`First, the arbitration agreement is valid because it is not unconscionable. Under California
`
`law,1 “a contractual clause is unenforceable only if it is both procedurally and substantively
`
`unconscionable.” Trudeau, 349 F. Supp. 3d at 877. The “threshold inquiry in California’s
`
`unconscionability analysis is whether the arbitration agreement is adhesive.” Mohamed v. Uber
`
`Techs., Inc., 848 F.3d 1201, 1211 (9th Cir. 2016). An “arbitration agreement is not adhesive if there
`
`is an opportunity to opt out of it.” Id. This Court has previously observed that Google’s TOS “make[s]
`
`it clear that advertisers can freely opt out of the Dispute Resolution Agreement provision.” Adtrader,
`
`Inc. v. Google LLC, 2018 WL 1876950, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2018); accord Trudeau, 349 F. Supp.
`
`3d at 877 (“[T]he . . . TOS provided a meaningful opportunity to opt out of the arbitration provision.”);
`
`see also Shadd Decl. ¶¶ 10, 12, 15-16 (discussing opt out process). In light of this voluntary opt out
`
`
`1 In the TOS, the parties agreed that “ALL CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THESE
`TERMS OR THE PROGRAMS WILL BE GOVERNED BY CALIFORNIA LAW, . . . EXCEPT TO
`THE EXTENT THAT CALIFORNIA LAW IS CONTRARY TO OR PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL
`LAW.” Shadd Decl., Exs. A & D, § 14.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`Case No. 4:21-cv-10001-HSG
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-10001-HSG Document 32 Filed 03/18/22 Page 8 of 9
`
`
`procedure, “the arbitration provision
`
`is not procedurally unconscionable and
`
`thus not
`
`unconscionable.” Trudeau, 349 F. Supp. 3d at 877.
`
`The Court therefore need not reach the issue of whether the agreement is substantively
`
`unconscionable. Id. But, even if it did, the agreement is not “so one-sided as to shock the conscience”
`
`
`for any number of reasons. Shierkatz Rllp v. Square, Inc., 2015 WL 9258082, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Dec.
`
`17, 2015). It is bilateral. See Garcia v. Comcast Cable Commc’n Mgmt. LLC, 2017 WL 1210044, at
`
`*3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2017) (“California law requires an arbitration agreement to have only a
`
`modicum of bilaterality.”). It provides that “[u]nless the parties agree otherwise, any arbitration
`
`hearings will take place in the county (or parish) . . . of Advertiser’s principal place of business,”
`
`Shadd Decl., Exs. A & D, § 13(C), ensuring an available and minimally burdensome forum for
`
`
`arbitration. See Tompkins, 840 F.3d at 1027 (noting that a forum selection clause may be unreasonable
`
`under California law “if the forum selected would be unavailable or unable to accomplish substantial
`
`justice” and that even “‘inconvenience or additional expense’ does not make the locale
`
`unreasonable”). And it requires Google to pay the arbitration fees in many instances. See Shadd Decl.,
`
`Exs. A & D, § 13(D); Ulbrich v. Overstock.Com, Inc., 887 F. Supp. 2d 924, 933 (N.D. Cal. 2012)
`
`(rejecting arguments of substantive unconscionability for a contract “requiri[ng] that employees pay a
`
`reduced filing fee and that the employer bear many of the hearing fees and costs”).
`
`Second, the arbitration agreement plainly encompasses Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff alleges that
`
`it overpaid Google for showing advertisements on Google’s search results pages due to an alleged
`
`conspiracy between Apple and Google. Compl. ¶¶ 45, 48, 139. With exceptions not applicable here,
`
`the TOS applies to “all disputes and claims” under “any legal theory” that “arise out of or relate in any
`
`way” to Google’s advertising programs—a broad agreement clearly encompassing the antitrust claims
`
`here. Shadd Decl., Exs. A & D, § 13(A). The TOS also applies to “Google,” “Google parent
`
`companies, and the respective officers [and] directors” of those entities, Shadd Decl., Exs. A & D,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 -
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`Case No. 4:21-cv-10001-HSG
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-10001-HSG Document 32 Filed 03/18/22 Page 9 of 9
`
`
`§ 13(A), which include Defendants Google LLC, Alphabet Inc., XXVI Holdings Inc., Sundar Pichai,
`
`and Eric Schmidt. See Compl. ¶ 49 (describing Google LLC as “a subsidiary of Defendant XXVI
`
`Holdings Inc., which is a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc.”); id. ¶¶ 52-53 (describing Messrs. Pichai and
`
`Schmidt as current and former executives of those entities). Finally, the TOS also extends to claims
`
`
`based on events that occurred before 2017. Shadd Decl., Exs. A & D, § 13(A); Trudeau, 349 F. Supp.
`
`3d at 878 (“On its face then, the arbitration provision applies to claims arising before the 2017 TOS.”).
`
`In view of these authorities, the arbitration issue should be no surprise to Plaintiff—yet its
`
`Complaint makes no reference to the issue. Because a valid arbitration agreement exists and covers
`
`the dispute at issue, Section 4 of the FAA “requires [the] court[] to compel arbitration in accordance
`
`with the terms of the agreement.” Concepcion, 563 U.S. at 344 (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s arbitration agreement with Google is valid and enforceable. The Google
`
`Defendants therefore respectfully request that the Court grant their motion to compel arbitration, and
`
`dismiss or stay these proceedings pending resolution of any arbitration.
`
`
`DATED: March 18, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`By: /s/ John E. Schmidtlein
`
`John E. Schmidtlein (CA State Bar No. 163520)
`Carol J. Pruski (CA State Bar No. 275953)
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Telephone:
`(202) 434-5000
`Facsimile:
`(202) 434-5029
`Email:
`jschmidtlein@wc.com
`Email:
`cpruski@wc.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Google LLC, Alphabet Inc.,
`XXVI Holdings Inc., Sundar Pichai, and Eric Schmidt
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 -
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`Case No. 4:21-cv-10001-HSG
`
`
`
`