`
`Case 3:22-cv-04792-RS Document 23 Filed 11/07/22 Page 1 of 40
`
`
`
`
`
`TIFFANY CHEUNG (CA SBN 211497)
`TCheung@mofo.com
`MICHAEL BURSHTEYN (CA SBN 295320)
`MBurshteyn@mofo.com
`DANIELLE VALLONE (CA SBN 302497)
`DVallone@mofo.com
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`425 Market Street
`San Francisco, California 94105
`Telephone: 415.268.7000
`Facsimile: 415.268.7522
`
`PURVI G. PATEL (CA SBN 270702)
`PPatel@mofo.com
`ERIK MANUKYAN (CA SBN 340307)
`EManukyan@mofo.com
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 6000
`Los Angeles, California 90017
`Telephone: 213.892.5200
`Facsimile: 213.892.5454
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`MICHAEL KATZ-LACABE, et al.,
`
`Case No. 3-22-cv-04792-RS
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`ORACLE AMERICA, INC., a corporation
`organized under the laws of the State of Delaware,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT ORACLE
`AMERICA, INC.’S NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION TO
`DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’
`COMPLAINT, OR
`ALTERNATIVELY STRIKE
`PORTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT
`
`Judge: Hon. Richard Seeborg
`
`Date: February 9, 2023
`Time: 1:30 p.m.
`Courtroom: 3
`
`Date Action Filed: August 19, 2022
`Trial Date: Not set
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS OR
`STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`
`SF-4944732
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-04792-RS
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-04792-RS Document 23 Filed 11/07/22 Page 2 of 40
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`
`TO PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 9, 2023, at 1:30 p.m., or soon thereafter as the
`
`matter may be heard, in Courtroom 3 located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 17th Floor, San
`
`Francisco, CA 94102, Defendant Oracle America, Inc. will and hereby does move this Court for
`
`an order dismissing Plaintiffs’ Complaint in its entirety pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure 8, 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6), and for an order striking portions of the Complaint pursuant
`
`to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), on the grounds that:
`
`(a) Plaintiffs lack Article III standing;
`
`(b) Plaintiffs lack a basis to apply California law extraterritorially;
`
`(c) Plaintiffs fail to state any claim for relief;
`
`(d) Paragraphs 64, 65, 76-81, and 147 of the Complaint are prejudicial, redundant, and
`immaterial allegations in violation of Rule 8; and
`
`(e) Paragraphs 123, 137, 157, 172, and 182 of the Complaint and Prayer for Relief J are
`immaterial and impertinent because Plaintiffs fail to and cannot allege that they lack
`an adequate remedy at law.
`
`This motion is based upon this Notice; the accompanying Memorandum of Points and
`
`Authorities; the Declaration of Purvi G. Patel; the Request for Judicial Notice; the pleadings,
`
`files, and records in this action; and such additional evidence and arguments as may be presented
`
`at the hearing of this motion.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 7, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`
`By: /s/ Purvi G. Patel
`Purvi G. Patel
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Oracle America, Inc.
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS OR
`STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`
`SF-4944732
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-04792-RS
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04792-RS Document 23 Filed 11/07/22 Page 3 of 40
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`IV.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES TO BE DECIDED .................................................................... ix
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ................................................................ 1
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`II.
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .......................................................................................... 2
`III.
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 3
`A.
`OA provides a suite of tools for advertisers to better connect with
`interested consumers ............................................................................................... 3
`Plaintiffs’ overarching allegation—that Oracle creates and sells individual
`consumer profiles—lacks both specificity and any factual basis............................ 6
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 7
`A.
`Plaintiffs Lack Article III Standing ......................................................................... 7
`1.
`Plaintiffs lack standing because they do not allege an injury that is
`concrete and particularized ......................................................................... 7
`Plaintiffs cannot allege they suffered an injury that is fairly
`traceable to Oracle’s conduct ...................................................................... 8
`This Court Cannot Apply California Law to the Claims of Non-Residents ........... 9
`1.
`Golbeck and Ryan fail to allege any basis for invoking California
`law ............................................................................................................... 9
`California’s UCL does not apply to non-residents .................................... 11
`Plaintiffs cannot assert California claims on behalf of non-resident
`members of the putative nationwide and worldwide classes .................... 12
`The Complaint Fails to State a Claim Under Rule 12(b)(6) ................................. 13
`1.
`Plaintiffs do not satisfy Rule 8’s pleading standard .................................. 13
`2.
`Plaintiffs fail to meet the “high bar” to state a claim for invasion of
`privacy or intrusion upon seclusion (first and second causes of
`action) ........................................................................................................ 14
`a.
`Plaintiffs have not alleged a reasonable expectation of
`privacy ........................................................................................... 15
`Plaintiffs fail to allege a “highly offensive” or “egregious”
`breach of social norms .................................................................. 17
`Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for CIPA or the federal Wiretap Act
`(fourth and fifth causes of action) ............................................................. 18
`a.
`Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for wiretapping under the
`federal Wiretap Act and CIPA Section 631(a)(ii) ......................... 18
`Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under CIPA Section 631(a)(iii) ...... 20
`b.
`Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under CIPA Section 631(a)(iv) ...... 21
`c.
`Plaintiffs lack standing and fail to state a claim under the UCL
`(third cause of action)................................................................................ 21
`
`2.
`
`2.
`3.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`b.
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS OR
`STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`
`SF-4944732
`
`i
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-04792-RS
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04792-RS Document 23 Filed 11/07/22 Page 4 of 40
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`
`Page
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for equitable relief (all causes of
`action) ........................................................................................................ 23
`a.
`Plaintiffs’ UCL and unjust enrichment claims and requests
`for injunctive relief under all other causes of action fail
`because there is an adequate remedy at law .................................. 23
`Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for unjust enrichment under
`California or Florida law ............................................................... 24
`Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for declaratory judgment (seventh
`cause of action) ......................................................................................... 25
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 25
`
`b.
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS OR
`STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`
`SF-4944732
`
`ii
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-04792-RS
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04792-RS Document 23 Filed 11/07/22 Page 5 of 40
`
`
`
`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
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Anderson v. Best Buy Stores L.P,
`No. 5:20-cv-41-Oc-30PRL, 2020 WL 5122781 (M.D. Fla. July 28, 2020),
`report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Anderson v. Coupons in News,
`2020 WL 5106676 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 31, 2020) ................................................................. 24, 25
`
`In re Apple & AT&T iPad Unlimited Data Plan Litig.,
`802 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (N.D. Cal. 2011) .................................................................................. 12
`
`In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litig.,
`347 F. Supp. 3d 434 (N.D. Cal. 2018), on reconsideration in part,
`386 F. Supp. 3d 1155 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .................................................................................... 9
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ................................................................................................................ 13
`
`Astiana v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc.,
`783 F.3d 753 (9th Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................... 24
`
`In re Banco Santander Sec.-Optimal Litig.,
`732 F. Supp. 2d 1305 (S.D. Fla. 2010) ................................................................................... 11
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ................................................................................................................ 13
`
`Bravo v. L.A. Cnty.,
`No. CV 08-6344-AHS (MLG), 2008 WL 4614298 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2008) ...................... 13
`
`Brodsky v. Apple Inc.,
`445 F. Supp. 3d 110 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .................................................................................... 19
`
`Brown v. Google LLC,
`No. 20-CV-03664-LHK, 2021 WL 6064009 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2021) ............................... 16
`
`Cabral v. Supple, LLC,
`No. EDCV 12-85-MWF, 2012 WL 12895825 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 3 2012) ................................. 15
`
`Cal. Advocs. for Nursing Home Reform, Inc. v. Chapman,
`No. 12-cv-06408-JST, 2013 WL 5946940 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2013), amended
`by 2014 WL 2450949 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2014) ....................................................................... 8
`
`Campbell v. Facebook Inc.,
`77 F. Supp. 3d 836 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ...................................................................................... 21
`
`In re Carrier IQ, Inc.,
`78 F. Supp. 3d 1051 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ...................................................................................... 7
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS OR
`iii
`Case No. 3:22-cv-04792-RS
`STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`
`SF-4944732
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-04792-RS Document 23 Filed 11/07/22 Page 6 of 40
`
`
`
`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
`
`Chowning v. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, Inc.,
`No. CV 15-08673 RGK, 2016 WL 1072129 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016) ................................ 23
`
`In re Clearly Canadian Sec. Litig.,
`875 F. Supp. 1410 (N.D. Cal. 1995) ................................................................................. 13, 14
`
`Cline v. Reetz-Laiolo,
`329 F. Supp. 3d 1000 (N.D. Cal. 2018) .................................................................................. 19
`
`Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A.,
`691 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................... 22, 23
`
`In re Ditropan XL Antitrust Litig.,
`529 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2007) .................................................................................... 7
`
`Edgar v. MITE Corp.,
`457 U.S. 624 (1982) ................................................................................................................ 10
`
`In re Facebook, Inc., Consumer Priv. User Profile Litig.,
`402 F. Supp. 3d 767 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .................................................................................... 21
`
`In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litig.,
`956 F.3d 589 (9th Cir. 2020) ................................................................................. 14, 15, 16, 17
`
`Folgelstrom v. Lamps Plus, Inc.,
`195 Cal. App. 4th 986 (2011)...................................................................................... 16, 17, 18
`
`Gentges v. Trend Micro Inc.,
`No. C 11-5574 ......................................................................................................................... 11
`
`Gonzales v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`305 F. Supp. 3d 1078 (N.D. Cal. 2018) .................................................................................. 21
`
`In re Google Assistant Privacy Litig.,
`457 F. Supp. 3d 797 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .................................................................................... 14
`
`In re Google Inc. Gmail Litig.,
`No. 13-MD-02430-LHK, 2013 WL 5423918 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2013) ........................ 20, 21
`
`In re Google Location History Litig.,
`428 F. Supp. 3d 185 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .................................................................................... 15
`
`In re Google, Inc. Privacy Policy Litig.,
`58 F. Supp. 3d 968 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ...................................................................................... 17
`
`Graham v. Noom, Inc.,
`533 F. Supp. 3d 823 (N.D. Cal. 2021) .................................................................................... 19
`
`Granfield v. NVIDIA Corp.,
`No. C 11-05403 JW, 2012 WL 2847575 (N.D. Cal. July 11, 2012) ....................................... 12
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS OR
`STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`
`SF-4944732
`
`iv
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-04792-RS
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04792-RS Document 23 Filed 11/07/22 Page 7 of 40
`
`
`
`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
`
`Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co.,
`243 F. Supp. 3d 1074 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .................................................................................. 22
`
`Hammerling v. Google LLC,
`No. 21-cv-09004-CRB, 2022 WL 2812188 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2022) ................ 16, 17, 18, 25
`
`Heeger v. Facebook, Inc.,
`509 F. Supp. 3d 1182 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .................................................................................. 15
`
`Hernandez v. Burger,
`102 Cal. App. 3d 795 (1980) ............................................................................................. 10, 11
`
`I.C. v. Zynga, Inc.,
`No. 20-cv-01539-YGR, 2022 WL 2252636 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2022) ................................... 8
`
`In re iPhone Application Litig.,
`No. 11-MD-02250-LHK, 2011 WL 4403963 (Sept. 20, 2011) .............................................. 21
`
`In re iPhone Application Litig.,
`844 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ............................................................................ 10, 17
`
`Kay v. Copper Cane, LLC,
`549 F. Supp. 3d 1014 (N.D. Cal. 2021) .................................................................................. 12
`
`Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court,
`51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011) ............................................................................................................ 21
`
`Lectrodryer v. SeoulBank,
`77 Cal. App. 4th 723 (2000).................................................................................................... 24
`
`Low v. LinkedIn Corp.,
`No. 11-CV-01468-LHK, 2011 WL 5509848 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 11, 2011) ........................ passim
`
`Lozano v. AT & T Wireless Servs., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2007) ............................................................................................. 22, 23
`
`Malasky v. Esposito,
`No. 16-cv-04102-DMR, 2019 WL 79032 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2019), aff’d, 781 F.
`App’x 643 (9th Cir. 2019) ....................................................................................................... 25
`
`Malverty v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC,
`407 F. Supp. 3d 1257 (M.D. Fla. 2019) ............................................................................ 10, 11
`
`Mastel v. Miniclip SA,
`549 F. Supp. 3d 1129 (E.D. Cal. 2021) ................................................................................... 21
`
`Maya v. Centex Corp.,
`658 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................... 8
`
`Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................... 10
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS OR
`v
`Case No. 3:22-cv-04792-RS
`STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`
`SF-4944732
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-04792-RS Document 23 Filed 11/07/22 Page 8 of 40
`
`
`
`McCann v. Foster Wheeler LLC,
`48 Cal. 4th 68 (2010) .............................................................................................................. 10
`
`McCoy v. Alphabet, Inc.,
`No. 20-cv-05427-SVK, 2021 WL 405816 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2021) ...................................... 17
`
`McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co.,
`845 F.2d 802 (9th Cir. 1988) ................................................................................................... 13
`
`McHenry v. Renne,
`84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996) ................................................................................................... 13
`
`Mendez v. Glob. Inst. of Stem Cell Therapy & Rsch., USA,
`No. 20cv915-LL-BLM, 2022 WL 3019858 (S.D. Cal. July 29, 2022) ................................... 14
`
`Murray v. Fin. Visions, Inc.,
`No. CV-07-2578-PHX-FJM, 2008 WL 4850328 (D. Ariz. Nov. 7, 2008) ............................. 20
`
`N.G.L. Travel Assocs. v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.,
`764 So.2d 672 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000), abrogated on other grounds by N. Am.
`Clearing, Inc. v. Brokerage Computer Sys., Inc., 666 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (M.D.
`Fla. 2009) ................................................................................................................................ 24
`
`Paulo v. Bepex Corp.,
`792 F.2d 894 (9th Cir. 1986) ................................................................................................... 11
`
`Popa v. Harriet Carter Gifts, Inc.,
`No. 21-2203, 2022 WL 10224949 (3d Cir. Oct. 18, 2022) ..................................................... 12
`
`Rodriguez v. Google LLC,
`No. 20-cv-04688-RS, 2021 WL 2026726 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2021) ............................... 16, 21
`
`Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
`971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020) .......................................................................................... x-xii, 23
`
`Spilfogel v. Fox Broad. Co.,
`433 F. App’x 724 (11th Cir. 2011) ......................................................................................... 10
`
`Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,
`578 U.S. 330 (2016) .............................................................................................................. 7, 8
`
`Tavernetti v. Superior Court,
`22 Cal.3d 187 (1978) .............................................................................................................. 20
`
`In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig.,
`781 F. Supp. 2d 955 (N.D. Cal. 2011) .................................................................................... 24
`
`TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez,
`141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021) .............................................................................................................. 8
`
`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
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS OR
`STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`
`SF-4944732
`
`vi
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-04792-RS
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-04792-RS Document 23 Filed 11/07/22 Page 9 of 40
`
`
`
`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
`
`United States v. Luong,
`471 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................................. 12
`
`United States v. Reed,
`575 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................... 20
`
`In re Yahoo Mail Litig.,
`7 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ................................................................................ 15, 20
`
`Yale v. Clicktale, Inc.,
`No. 20-cv-07575-LB, 2021 WL 1428400 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2021)............................... 19, 20
`
`Yoon v. Lululemon USA, Inc.,
`549 F. Supp. 3d 1073 (C.D. Cal. 2021)................................................................................... 20
`
`Yothers v. JFC Int’l, Inc.,
`No. 20-cv-01657-RS, 2020 WL 5015262 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2020) ..................................... 24
`
`Zinser v. Accufix Rsch. Inst., Inc.,
`253 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2001), amended by 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001) ............................ 9
`
`In re Zynga Privacy Litig.,
`750 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................. 20
`
`Statutes & Rules
`
`18 U.S.C.
`§ 2510 et seq. .......................................................................................................................... 18
`§ 2510(4) ................................................................................................................................. 20
`§ 2511(1)(a) ............................................................................................................................. 19
`§ 2511(2)(d) ............................................................................................................................ 19
`
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
`§ 17203 .................................................................................................................................... 23
`§ 17204 .................................................................................................................................... 21
`
`Cal. Penal Code § 631 et seq. ................................................................................................. passim
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P.
`8 ................................................................................................................................................ ix
`8(a)(2) ...................................................................................................................................... 13
`12(b)(1) .................................................................................................................................... ix
`12(b)(6) .................................................................................................................................... ix
`12(f) .......................................................................................................................... ix, x, 13, 23
`23 ............................................................................................................................................. 11
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Alex Pearce, Time For a National Privacy Law?, 38-SPG Del. Law. 6 (2020) ........................... 11
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS OR
`STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`
`SF-4944732
`
`vii
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-04792-RS
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04792-RS Document 23 Filed 11/07/22 Page 10 of 40
`
`
`
`Manning Gilbert Warren, III, The Prospects for Convergence of Collective
`Redress Remedies in the European Union, 47 Int’l Law. 325, 332 (2013) ............................ 11
`
`General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
`Article (1)(1) ........................................................................................................................... 10
`Article (80)(1) ......................................................................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS OR
`STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`
`SF-4944732
`
`viii
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-04792-RS
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-04792-RS Document 23 Filed 11/07/22 Page 11 of 40
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`The motion raises the following issues:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Standing. Whether Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed for lack of standing
`under Rule 12(b)(1) because they have failed to allege sufficient injury-in-fact and
`a causal relationship between Oracle America, Inc.’s (“Oracle”) conduct and their
`purported injuries.
`Extraterritorial Application of California Law. Whether Plaintiffs’ California
`claims should be dismissed because Plaintiffs have failed to allege any legal basis
`to apply California claims to non-resident Plaintiffs Golbeck and Ryan.
`Inadequate Pleading. Whether Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed under
`Rule 12(b)(6) because they have failed to plead their allegations with particularity
`and specificity as required by Rule 8.
`Constitutional and Common Law Privacy Claims. Whether Plaintiffs’
`constitutional invasion of privacy and common law intrusion upon seclusion
`claims should be dismissed because (a) Plaintiffs do not allege a reasonable
`expectation of privacy, and (b) Oracle’s alleged conduct does not constitute an
`egregious or offensive breach of privacy.
`California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) and federal Wiretap Act. Whether
`Plaintiffs’ claims under CIPA and the federal Wiretap Act should be dismissed
`because (a) Oracle is exempt from liability as a party to Plaintiffs’ alleged
`communications, (b) Plaintiffs cannot plausibly allege that Oracle intercepted the
`“contents” of their communications, (c) Plaintiffs cannot plausibly allege that
`Oracle violated the federal Wiretap Act’s one-party consent policy, and
`(d) Plaintiffs cannot plausibly allege claims under their remaining CIPA theories.
`Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Whether Plaintiffs’ UCL claim should be
`dismissed because Plaintiffs have not alleged (a) statutory standing under the
`UCL, (b) any conduct that would establish a violation of UCL’s “unlawful” or
`“unfair” prongs, (c) any basis to apply the UCL extraterritorially to non-California
`Plaintiffs, or (d) that they lack an adequate remedy at law (nor can they).
`Unjust Enrichment. Whether Plaintiffs’ claims for unjust enrichment should be
`dismissed because (a) there is no standalone cause of action for unjust enrichment,
`and (b) Plaintiffs have not alleged that they lack an adequate remedy at law (nor
`can they).
`Declaratory Judgment. Whether Plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory judgment
`should be dismissed because declaratory judgment is not a standalone cause of
`action.
`Matter to be Stricken.
`a. Whether Paragraphs 64, 65, 76-81, and 147 of the Complaint should be
`stricken pursuant to Rule 12(f) because they are prejudicial, redundant, and
`immaterial allegations in violation of Rule 8.
`b. Whether Plaintiffs’ requests for equitable relief under the First, Second,
`Fourth, Fifth, and Seventh causes of action at Paragraphs 123, 137, 157, 172,
`and 182 of the Complaint and Prayer for Relief J should be stricken pursuant to
`
`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
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS OR
`STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`
`SF-4944732
`
`ix
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-04792-RS
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04792-RS Document 23 Filed 11/07/22 Page 12 of 40
`
`
`
`Rule 12(f) as immaterial and impertinent because Plaintiffs fail to and cannot
`allege that they lack an adequate remedy at law.
`
`Oracle summarizes the grounds for dismissal for each cause of action, by Plaintiff, in the
`
`M. Katz-Lacabe
`
`J. Golbeck
`
`J. Ryan
`
` Not brought by Golbeck  Not brought by
`Ryan
`
` No Article III standing
` No extraterritorial
`application
` Failure to allege a
`reasonable expectation
`of privacy or a highly
`offensive breach of
`social norms
` No equitable relief
`because adequate
`remedy at law (Sonner)
`
` No Article III standing
` No statutory standing
` No extraterritorial
`application
` Adequate remedy at law
`(Sonner)
` Failure to state a claim
`under the “unlawful” or
`“unfair” prong
`
` No Article III
`standing
` No extraterritorial
`application
` Failure to allege a
`reasonable
`expectation of
`privacy or a highly
`offensive breach of
`social norms
` No equitable relief
`because adequate
`remedy at law
`(Sonner)
` No Article III
`standing
` No statutory
`standing
` No extraterritorial
`application
` Adequate remedy
`at law (Sonner)
` Failure to state a
`claim under the
`
`chart below:
`
`Cause of
`Action
`
`Invasion of
`Privacy
`Under the
`California
`Constitution
`(First Cause
`of Action)
`
`Intrusion
`Upon
`Seclusion
`Under
`California
`Common
`Law (Second
`Cause of
`Action)
`
` No Article III standing
` Failure to allege a
`reasonable expectation
`of privacy or highly
`offensive breach of
`social norms
` No equitable relief
`because adequate
`remedy at law (Sonner)
` No Article III standing
` Failure to allege a
`reasonable expectation
`of privacy or a highly
`offensive breach of
`social norms
` No equitable relief
`because adequate
`remedy at law (Sonner)
`
`
`
`California
`Unfair
`Competition
`Law
`(Third Cause
`of Action)
`
` No Article III standing
` No statutory standing
` Adequate remedy at law
`(Sonner)
` Failure to state a claim
`under the “unlawful” or
`“unfair” prong
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS OR
`STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`
`SF-4944732
`
`x
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-04792-RS
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04792-RS Document 23 Filed 11/07/22 Page 13 of 40
`
`
`
`M. Katz-Lacabe
`
`J. Golbeck
`
`J. Ryan
`
` No Article III standing
` Failure to state a claim
`because Oracle is
`exempt from liability as
`a party to the alleged
`communications and
`because Plaintiffs fail to
`plausibly allege that
`Oracle intercepted the
`“contents” of their
`alleged communications
` No equitable relief
`because adequate
`remedy at law (Sonner)
` No Article III standing
` Failure to state a claim
`because Oracle is
`exempt from liability as
`a party to Plaintiffs’
`alleged communications,
`because Oracle had the
`consent of at least one
`party to the alleged
`communications, and
`because Plaintiffs fail to
`plausibly allege that
`Oracle intercepted the
`“contents” of their
`alleged communications
` No equitable relief
`because adequate
`remedy at law (Sonner)
`
` Not brought by
`Golbeck
`
`“unlawful” or
`“unfair” prong
` Not brought by
`Ryan
`
` Not brought by
`Ryan
`
` No Article III standing
` Failure to state a claim
`because Oracle is
`exempt from liability as
`a party to Plaintiffs’
`alleged communications,
`because Oracle had the
`consent of at least one
`party to the alleged
`communications, and
`because Plaintiffs fail to
`plausibly allege that
`Oracle intercepted the
`“contents” of their
`alleged communications.
` No equitable relief
`because adequate
`remedy at law (Sonner)
`
`Cause of
`Action
`
`California
`Invasion of
`Privacy Act
`(Fourth Cause
`of Action)
`
`Federal
`Wiretap Act
`(Fifth Cause
`of Action)
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS OR
`STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`
`SF-4944732
`
`xi
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-04792-RS
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04792-RS Document 23 Filed 11/07/22 Page 14 of 40
`
`
`
`Cause of
`Action
`
`Unjust
`Enrichment
`(Sixth Cause
`of Action)
`
`Declaratory
`Judgment
`(Seventh
`Cause of
`Action)
`
`M. Katz-Lacabe
`
`J. Golbeck
`
`J. Ryan
`
` No Article III standing
` Adequate remedy at law
`(Sonner)
`Failure to state a claim
`under California law
`because (