Case 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD Document 16-1 Filed 04/18/22 PageID.48 Page 1 of 35
`
`JENNER & BLOCK LLP
`Kate T. Spelman (Cal. Bar. No. 269109)
`kspelman@jenner.com
`515 S. Flower Street, Suite 3300
`Los Angeles, California 90071
`Telephone: 213 239-5100
`Facsimile: 213 239-5199
`
`JENNER & BLOCK LLP
`Debbie L. Berman (pro hac vice) (Ill. Bar No. 6205154)
`dberman@jenner.com
`Wade A. Thomson (pro hac vice) (Ill. Bar No. 6282174)
`wthomson@jenner.com
`Clifford W. Berlow (pro hac vice) (Ill. Bar No. 6292383)
`cberlow@jenner.com
`353 North Clark Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`Telephone: 312 222-9350
`
`Attorneys for Defendants PeopleConnect, Inc., The
`Control Group Media Company, LLC, and Intelius
`LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`JOSE MEDINA CAMACHO and
`RHONDA COTTA, on behalf of
`themselves and all others similarly
`situated,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`PEOPLECONNECT, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation, INTELIUS LLC, a Delaware
`limited liability company, and THE
`CONTROL GROUP MEDIA COMPANY,
`LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD
`
`The Honorable Michael M. Anello
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS &
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’
`COMPLAINT
`
`Hearing Date: May 16, 2022
`Hearing Time: 2:30 p.m.
`Courtroom: 3C
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-00209
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD Document 16-1 Filed 04/18/22 PageID.49 Page 2 of 35
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................................................. iii
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 2
`ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................... 3
`I.
`Plaintiff Camacho Agreed To Arbitrate His Claims. ................................................ 3
`A.
`Plaintiffs’ Attorney Agreed To The Terms Of Service As Their Agent......... 3
`B.
`Camacho Must Arbitrate His Dispute. ............................................................ 4
`C.
`If The Court Determines That The Record Does Not Sufficiently
`Establish Ratification, The Court Should Order Limited Discovery. ............. 6
`Cotta Fails To State A Claim Under § 3344.............................................................. 6
`A.
`Cotta Fails To Plead A Prima Facie Claim Under § 3344. ............................ 6
`1.
`Cotta Fails To Plead A “Use” Of Her Identity. .................................... 7
`2.
`Cotta Fails To Plead Use Of Her Identity “For Purposes Of
`Advertising Or Selling, Or Soliciting Purchases.” ............................... 7
`Cotta Fails To Plead An Actionable Injury. ....................................... 10
`3.
`Cotta’s Claim Is Barred By § 3344’s “Public Affairs” Exemption. ............. 11
`B.
`III. Camacho Fails To State A Claim Under ARPA. .................................................... 12
`A.
`Camacho Fails To Plead A Prima Facie Claim Under ARPA. .................... 12
`B.
`Camacho’s Claim Falls Within ARPA’s Exemptions. ................................. 13
`1.
`Camacho’s Claim Is Barred By The “Public Interest”
`Exemption. .......................................................................................... 13
`Camacho’s Claim Is Barred By The “Expressive Work”
`Exemption. .......................................................................................... 14
`Camacho Fails To Plead A Claim Within ARPA’s Territorial Scope. ......... 15
`C.
`Federal Law Bars Plaintiffs’ Claims. ...................................................................... 16
`i
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-00209
`
`IV.
`
`II.
`
`2.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD Document 16-1 Filed 04/18/22 PageID.50 Page 3 of 35
`
`A.
`B.
`
`The Communications Decency Act Bars Plaintiffs’ Claims. ........................ 16
`The First Amendment Bars Plaintiffs’ Claims. ............................................. 18
`1.
`Plaintiffs’ Claims Trigger Strict Scrutiny. .......................................... 18
`2.
`Even If The Search Results Were Commercial Speech, Plaintiffs
`Cannot Satisfy Intermediate Scrutiny. ................................................ 20
`Plaintiffs’ Liability Theory Violates The Dormant Commerce Clause. ....... 21
`C.
`Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Barred By The California Anti-SLAPP Statute. ................. 23
`A.
`Plaintiffs’ Suit Arises From Defendants’ Protected Conduct. ...................... 24
`B.
`Plaintiffs Cannot Show A Likelihood Of Success On Their Claims. ........... 25
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 25
`
`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
`
`ii
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-00209
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD Document 16-1 Filed 04/18/22 PageID.51 Page 4 of 35
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`ACLU v. Johnson,
`194 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 1999) ..................................................................................... 23
`Almeida v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`456 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2006) ....................................................................................... 8
`Am. Beverage Ass’n v. Snyder,
`735 F.3d 362 (6th Cir. 2013) ................................................................................... 22, 23
`Am. Booksellers Found. v. Dean,
`342 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................... 22, 23
`Am. Libraries Ass’n v. Pataki,
`969 F. Supp. 160 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ................................................................................ 23
`Ballen v. City of Redmond,
`466 F.3d 736 (9th Cir. 2006) ......................................................................................... 21
`Baptist Health Sys., Inc. v. Mack,
`860 So. 2d 1265 (Ala. 2003) ............................................................................................ 5
`Barrett v. Rosenthal,
`40 Cal. 4th 33 (2006) ..................................................................................................... 24
`Bartnicki v. Vopper,
`532 U.S. 514 (2001) ................................................................................................. 18, 20
`Baugh v. CBS, Inc.,
`828 F. Supp. 745 (N.D. Cal. 1993) ................................................................................ 11
`Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp.,
`463 U.S. 60 (1983) ......................................................................................................... 20
`
`Brennan v. Opus Bank,
`No. 13-cv-00094, 2013 WL 2445430 (W.D. Wash. June 5, 2013) ................................. 3
`Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corp.,
`No. 21-cv-01418, 2021 WL 3621837 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2021) ................................... 9
`
`iii
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-00209
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD Document 16-1 Filed 04/18/22 PageID.52 Page 5 of 35
`
`Callahan v. Ancestry.com Inc.,
`No. 20-cv-08437, 2021 WL 783524 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2021) ..................................... 17
`Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of New York,
`447 U.S. 557 (1980) ................................................................................................. 20, 21
`Cher v. Forum Int’l, Ltd.,
`692 F.2d 634 (9th Cir. 1982) ......................................................................................... 20
`Christoff v. Nestlé USA, Inc.,
`47 Cal. 4th 468 (2009) ..................................................................................................... 7
`Cohen v. Facebook, Inc.,
`798 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ................................................................... 10, 11
`Cox Broad. Corp. v. Cohn,
`420 U.S. 469 (1975) ....................................................................................................... 20
`Cross v. Facebook, Inc.,
`14 Cal. App. 5th 190 (2017) ............................................................................................ 7
`Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd,
`470 U.S. 213 (1985) ......................................................................................................... 3
`Dennis v. MyLife.Com, Inc.,
`No. 20-cv-954, 2021 WL 6049830 (D.N.J. Dec. 20, 2021) .................................... 16, 17
`Dex Media W., Inc. v. City of Seattle,
`696 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2012) ......................................................................................... 18
`Dinh Nguy v. Cinch Bakery Equip., LLC,
`No. 13-cv-02283 2014 WL 130474 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2014) ........................................ 3
`Dobrowolski v. Intelius, Inc,.
`No. 17 CV 1406, 2018 WL 11185289 (N.D. Ill. May 21, 2018) .................................... 9
`Doe v. Oesterblad,
`No. EDCV 13-0514, 2013 WL 12085541 (C.D. Cal. May 9, 2013) ............................. 19
`Doe v. Roe,
`638 So. 2d 826 (Ala. 1994) ............................................................................................ 14
`Dora v. Frontline Video, Inc.,
`15 Cal. App. 4th 536 (1993) .................................................................................... 12, 24
`
`iv
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-00209
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD Document 16-1 Filed 04/18/22 PageID.53 Page 6 of 35
`
`Eidson v. Albertville Auto Acquisitions, Inc.,
`No. 19-CV-00459, 2019 WL 6311495 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 25, 2019) ................................. 6
`Force v. Facebook, Inc.,
`934 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................ 17
`Gionfriddo v. Major League Baseball,
`94 Cal. App. 4th 400 (2001) ............................................................................ 8, 9, 11, 24
`Gonzalez v. Google LLC,
`2 F.4th 871 (9th Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................ 17
`In re Google, Inc. Priv. Pol’y Litig.,
`No. C-12-01382, 2013 WL 6248499 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2013) .................................... 11
`Groden v. Random House, Inc.,
`61 F.3d 1045 (2d Cir. 1995) .......................................................................................... 20
`Guglielmi v. Spelling-Goldberg Prods.,
`25 Cal. 3d 860 (1979) ...................................................................................................... 8
`Healy v. Beer Inst.,
`491 U.S. 324 (1989) ....................................................................................................... 21
`hiQ Labs, Inc. v. Linkedin Corp.,
`273 F. Supp. 3d 1099 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ......................................................................... 25
`Hui Ma v. Golden State Renaissance Ventures, LLC,
`No. 21-cv-00856, 2021 WL 2190912 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2021) ............................... 5–6
`IMDb.com Inc. v. Becerra,
`962 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2020) ................................................................................. 18, 19
`
`Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco v. Uber Technologies,
`Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-06503, 2019 WL 3430656 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2019) .................................... 5
`Italian Colors Rest. v. Becerra,
`878 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2018) ....................................................................................... 20
`J.C. v. WALA-TV, Inc.,
`675 So. 2d 360 (Ala. 1996) ...................................................................................... 13, 14
`Jane Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.com, LLC,
`817 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................ 17
`v
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-00209
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD Document 16-1 Filed 04/18/22 PageID.54 Page 7 of 35
`
`Johnson v. Jackson,
`No. 20-cv-1710, 2021 WL 2826427 (N.D. Ala. July 7, 2021) .......................... 12–13, 14
`Kimzey v. Yelp! Inc.,
`836 F.3d 1263 (9th Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... 16, 17, 18
`Kindred Nursing Ctrs. E., LLC v. Jones,
`201 So. 3d 1146 (Ala. 2016) ............................................................................................ 4
`Knievel v. ESPN,
`393 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2005) ......................................................................................... 2
`Levin v. Caviar, Inc.,
`146 F. Supp. 3d 1146 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ........................................................................... 4
`Liberi v. Taitz,
`No. SACV 11-0485, 2011 WL 13315691 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2011) ........................... 16
`Local TV, LLC v. Superior Ct.,
`3 Cal. App. 5th 1 (2016) ................................................................................................ 21
`Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC,
`715 F.3d 254 (9th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................. 23, 24, 25
`Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC,
`736 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2013) ....................................................................................... 23
`Maloney v. T3Media, Inc.,
`853 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2017) ......................................................................................... 6
`Miller v. Collectors Universe, Inc.,
`159 Cal. App. 4th 988 (2008) ........................................................................................ 10
`Montana v. San Jose Mercury News, Inc.,
`34 Cal. App. 4th 790 (1995) .................................................................................... 10, 20
`Murphy v. Schneider Nat’l, Inc.,
`362 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2004) ......................................................................................... 3
`Namath v. Sports Illustrated,
`363 N.Y.S.2d 276 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1975) .................................................................. 10, 20
`New Kids on the Block v. News Am. Publ’g, Inc.,
`745 F. Supp. 1540 (C.D. Cal. 1990) .............................................................................. 24
`
`vi
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-00209
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD Document 16-1 Filed 04/18/22 PageID.55 Page 8 of 35
`
`Nieman v. VersusLaw, Inc.,
`512 F. App’x 635 (7th Cir. 2013) ........................................................................ 9, 19, 22
`Nieman v. Versuslaw, Inc.,
`No. 12-3104, 2012 WL 3201931 (C.D. Ill. Aug. 3, 2012) .............................................. 9
`Nygård, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula,
`159 Cal. App. 4th 1027 (2008) ...................................................................................... 24
`Obado v. Magedson,
`Civ. No. 13-2382, 2014 WL 3778261 (D.N.J. July 31, 2014) .............................. 8–9, 16
`Ex parte Old Republic Sur. Co.,
`733 So. 2d 881 (Ala. 1999) ............................................................................................ 15
`Ostergren v. Cuccinelli,
`615 F.3d 263 (4th Cir. 2010) ......................................................................................... 20
`Pace v. Smith,
`280 So. 3d 428 (Ala. Civ. App. 2019) ............................................................................. 4
`Perkins v. Linkedin Corp.,
`53 F. Supp. 3d 1222 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ........................................................................... 11
`Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.,
`397 U.S. 137 (1970) ....................................................................................................... 22
`Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. Progress,
`890 F.3d 828 (9th Cir. 2018) ......................................................................................... 25
`PSINet, Inc. v. Chapman,
`362 F.3d 227 (4th Cir. 2004) ......................................................................................... 23
`Reed v. Town of Gilbert,
`576 U.S. 155 (2015) ....................................................................................................... 18
`Rush v. Atomic Elec. Co.,
`384 So. 2d 1067 (Ala. 1980) ............................................................................................ 5
`Sam Francis Found. v. Christies, Inc.,
`784 F.3d 1320 (9th Cir. 2015) ....................................................................................... 21
`Sarver v. Chartier,
`813 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 2016) ......................................................................................... 18
`
`vii
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-00209
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD Document 16-1 Filed 04/18/22 PageID.56 Page 9 of 35
`
`Shulman v. Grp. W Prods., Inc.,
`18 Cal. 4th 200 (1998) ................................................................................................... 11
`Simple Helix, LLC v. Relus Techs., LLC,
`No. 20-cv-00453, 2020 WL 7401592 (N.D. Ala. Dec. 17, 2020) ............................... 4, 5
`Slivinsky v. Watkins-Johnson Co.,
`221 Cal. App. 3d 799 (1990) ......................................................................................... 10
`Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.,
`564 U.S. 552 (2011) ....................................................................................................... 18
`State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Motley,
`909 So. 2d 806 (Ala. 2005) ............................................................................................ 12
`Tompkins v. 23andMe, Inc.,
`No. 13-CV-05682, 2014 WL 2903752 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2014) ................................. 4
`United States v. United Foods, Inc.,
`533 U.S. 405 (2001) ....................................................................................................... 19
`Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.,
`425 U.S. 748 (1976) ....................................................................................................... 19
`Vrdolyak v. Avvo, Inc.,
`206 F. Supp. 3d 1384 (N.D. Ill. 2016) ..................................................................... 18, 19
`Wilbanks v. Wolk,
`121 Cal. App. 4th 883 (2004) ........................................................................................ 24
`William O’Neil & Co. v. Validea.com Inc.,
`202 F. Supp. 2d 1113 (C.D. Cal. 2002) ....................................................... 11, 12, 20, 24
`Rules and Statutes
`47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) .......................................................................................................... 16
`Ala. Code § 6-5-770 .............................................................................................................. 3
`Ala. Code § 6-5-772 ...................................................................................................... 13, 15
`Ala. Code § 6-5-773 .......................................................................................... 13, 14, 15, 16
`Ala. Code § 8-2-4 .................................................................................................................. 4
`
`viii
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-00209
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD Document 16-1 Filed 04/18/22 PageID.57 Page 10 of 35
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 3344 .................................................................................................. passim
`Cal. Code Civ. P. § 425.16 ...................................................................................... 23, 24, 25
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) ......................................................................................................... 3
`Other Authorities
`Expressive, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-
`webster.com/dictionary/expressive (last visited Apr. 15, 2022) ................................... 15
`Othni J. Lathram et al., Alabama’s Right of Publicity Act, 76 Ala. Law 256,
`258 (2015) ...................................................................................................................... 12
`Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652C (1977) .................................................................... 12
`Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 46 (1995) .................................................... 12
`Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 47 ............................................................ 8, 10
`Work, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/work
`(last visited Apr. 15, 2022) ............................................................................................ 14
`
`ix
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-00209
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD Document 16-1 Filed 04/18/22 PageID.58 Page 11 of 35
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiffs have sued Defendants The Control Group Media Company, LLC (“TCG”),
`Intelius LLC (“Intelius”), and PeopleConnect, Inc. (“PeopleConnect”) (collectively,
`“Defendants”). TCG and Intelius operate Intelius.com and USSearch.com (collectively the
`“Websites”),1 which enable users to search for public biographical information about
`individuals by inputting a name into a search engine which generates a list of search results.
`Plaintiffs improperly attempt to use the California and Alabama right of publicity laws to
`attack this routine part of e-commerce—generating search results based upon user
`queries—that these statutes were never intended to cover. These search results are no
`different from results produced by any other internet search engine where a user can search
`for information about a person, such as looking for a biography on Amazon.
`Plaintiff Camacho should be stopped in his tracks for a simple reason—pursuant to
`the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), he is bound by Defendants’ Terms of Service (“TOS”)
`to resolve his claim in arbitration on an individual basis. Additionally, both Plaintiffs’
`claims are premised on the demonstrably false assertion that their identities are improperly
`being used to sell an unrelated product. Screenshots of the entire flow of the Websites
`objectively resolve that it is untrue. Plaintiffs thus have failed to state actionable claims for
`a range of reasons—they have not and cannot plead all the elements of their claims, Section
`230 of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”) bars their claims, California’s anti-
`SLAPP statute bars them as well, and both the First Amendment and the Commerce Clause
`further foreclose them. At bottom, the right of publicity that California and Alabama
`recognize simply does not prohibit Defendants or any other search engine from providing
`users with search results so users can determine whether the website has a background
`report about the person for whom the user is searching. This Court should reject what
`amounts to an attempt to abolish search-engine-based products like Defendants’ public-
`record, biographical background reports.
`
`1 TCG and Intelius are the current owners and operators of the Websites.
`1
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD Document 16-1 Filed 04/18/22 PageID.59 Page 12 of 35
`
`BACKGROUND
`Defendants’ Websites sell access to background reports that are “compiled” from
`third-party sources, including “public record repositories.” Compl. ¶¶1, 25. Like websites
`across the internet, the Websites offer a free search function that allows users to “search for
`an individual” to determine if a report can be compiled about that person. Id. ¶¶1–2. This
`function is available on the Websites’ home pages, by way of a “search bar” into which a
`user “typ[es] the individual’s first and last name.” Id. ¶¶2, 27; Declaration of Brian Mahon
`(“Decl.”) Ex. A at 1 (hereinafter “Decl. Ex. A”).2 A user then is shown “a list of the
`individuals found” that have the “same name” as the queried person and possibly some
`additional biographical information. Compl. ¶27; Decl. Ex. A at 7. A user can view that
`person’s report by clicking a link. Compl. ¶27 (figs.1, 2), 28; Decl. Ex. A at 7. Ultimately,
`after clicking through numerous additional screens, including a screen where the user must
`accept the Terms of Service, the user may proceed to a separate page where the user can
`register to view the report of the searched-for person and other reports. Decl. Ex. A at 7–
`31.
`
`Plaintiffs allege they “discovered” Defendants’ use of their identities, without
`alleging how they came to learn this information. Compl. ¶39. But they do not allege that
`anyone other than their counsel has ever searched for their names or that anyone other than
`their counsel has ever clicked the link next to their names on the Websites. See Compl.
`Plaintiffs nonetheless allege that their identities were “misappropriated” under the
`California Right of Publicity Statute, Cal. Civ. Code § 3344 (“§ 3344”), and the Alabama
`Right of Publicity Act (“ARPA”), Ala. Code § 6-5-770 et seq., because user-initiated
`
`2 In ruling on Defendants’ 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court can consider the additional
`screenshots from the Websites because the Websites are referenced in and are central to
`Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1076–77 (9th Cir. 2005) (“tak[ing]
`into account the web pages attached to [the defendant]’s motion to dismiss under the
`‘incorporation by reference’ doctrine” where the plaintiffs attached to their complaint only
`certain parts of defendant’s website and defendant’s motion attached “the surrounding web
`pages” that “one must first view” “in order to access” the allegedly unlawful page).
`2
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-00209
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD Document 16-1 Filed 04/18/22 PageID.60 Page 13 of 35
`
`I.
`
`searches theoretically could present their names and biographical information next to the
`“Open Report” button and then, if someone clicked on that button and through a number of
`other screens, a user could view a page that “market[s] and promote[s] a monthly
`subscription to access unlimited reports on individuals in the Intelius.com and
`USSearch.com database.” Id. ¶¶6, 34; see Decl. Ex. A at 7–31.
`ARGUMENT
`Plaintiff Camacho Agreed To Arbitrate His Claim.
`Camacho is in the wrong forum. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3). The FAA “mandates
`that district courts shall direct the parties to proceed to arbitration on issues as to which an
`arbitration agreement has been signed.” Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213,
`218 (1985).3 Camacho thus must proceed in arbitration.
`A.
`Camacho’s Attorney Agreed To The Terms Of Service As His Agent.
`To perform a search on the Websites, a user must click a button, below which appears
`a message indicating that clicking constitutes affirmative consent to the applicable Terms
`of Service (“TOS”). Decl. ¶¶10–11, 14. The TOS are hyperlinked directly from that
`message and provide “YOU AND THE PEOPLECONNECT ENTITIES EACH AGREE
`THAT ANY AND ALL DISPUTES THAT HAVE ARISEN OR MAY ARISE BETWEEN
`YOU AND THE PEOPLECONNECT ENTITIES SHALL BE RESOLVED
`EXCLUSIVELY THROUGH FINAL AND BINDING ARBITRATION, RATHER THAN
`IN COURT.” Decl. Exs. C, D.
`
`3 Courts in this Circuit have granted motions to compel arbitration pursuant to Rule
`12(b)(3). See, e.g., Brennan v. Opus Bank, No. 13-cv-00094, 2013 WL 2445430, at *2–4,
`*8 (W.D. Wash. June 5, 2013), aff’d, 796 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2015) (applying the FAA and
`dismissing case under Rule 12(b)(3) upon finding arbitration was proper forum); Dinh Nguy
`v. Cinch Bakery Equip., LLC, No. 13-cv-02283, 2014 WL 130474, at *1–2 (E.D. Cal. Jan.
`10, 2014) (same). Because a motion to compel arbitration is brought pursuant to Rule
`12(b)(3), the Court need not accept the pleadings as true and may consider materials outside
`the pleadings. Murphy v. Schneider Nat’l, Inc., 362 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2004).
`3
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-00209
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD Document 16-1 Filed 04/18/22 PageID.61 Page 14 of 35
`
`The Websites’ records indicate that Camacho’s counsel performed searches to
`generate screenshots used in his Complaint. Decl. ¶¶16–17. To obtain them, Camacho’s
`counsel had to agree to the TOS because they are accessible only after a user agrees to the
`TOS.4 See Compl. ¶¶27–28; Decl. ¶¶10–11, 17; see Tompkins v. 23andMe, Inc., No. 13-
`CV-05682, 2014 WL 2903752, at *7 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2014) (access to portions of
`website requiring consent to TOS establishes assent), aff’d, 840 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2016);
`Levin v. Caviar, Inc., 146 F. Supp. 3d 1146, 1157 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (compelling arbitration
`for clickwrap agreement).
`B.
`Camacho Must Arbitrate His Dispute.
`A lawyer is his client’s “agent,” see Pace v. Smith, 280 So. 3d 428, 436 (Ala. Civ.
`App. 2019) (citation omitted), and an agent may bind a principal to an arbitration agreement,
`see Kindred Nursing Ctrs. E., LLC v. Jones, 201 So. 3d 1146, 1156–57 (Ala. 2016). An
`agent has authority to do everything “proper and usual” for “effecting the purpose of his
`agency.” Ala. Code § 8-2-4. Conducting searches that form the basis of Camacho’s claim
`and acquiring screenshots to include in a complaint are activities within the scope of
`Camacho’s counsel’s agency—they were “reasonably necessary and proper to” pursue
`Camacho’s claim. See Simple Helix, LLC v. Relus Techs., LLC, No. 20-cv-00453, 2020 WL
`7401592, at *8, *10 (N.D. Ala. Dec. 17, 2020) (citation omitted) (agent bound principal
`because actions were incidental to authority as agent).5 Indeed, that is why the court in Azuz
`v. Accucom Corp., No. 21-cv-01182 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 15, 2022), noted that it was “unlikely”
`
`4 Although Kevin Tucker did not sign the Complaint in this action, see Compl. at 18–19, he
`represented Plaintiff Camacho in the initial lawsuit Camacho filed against Defendants in
`the Western District of Washington action, which was then refiled here. Camacho v.
`PeopleConnect, Inc., No. 21-cv-01074-JCC-SKV (W.D. Wash. Feb. 15, 2022), ECF No.
`19 at 13–14. He also represents Camacho in related actions against Instant Checkmate and
`TruthFinder. See Camacho v. Instant Checkmate, LLC, No. 21-cv-01954-MMA-MDD
`(S.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2021), ECF No. 1 at 16–17; Camacho v. TruthFinder, LLC, No. 21-cv-
`01957-MMA-JLB (S.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2021), ECF No. 1 at 16.
`5 Camacho’s counsel could have opted out of arbitration, but did not do so. See Decl. ¶¶24,
`Exs. C, D.
`
`4
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-00209
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD Document 16-1 Filed 04/18/22 PageID.62 Page 15 of 35
`
`an attorney would search for a person who was not his client, only to later enter into an
`attorney-client relationship with that individual. Order at 2–3 n.2, Azuz, No. 21-cv-01182,
`(N.D. Ill. Feb. 15, 2022), ECF No. 32. Camacho thus is bound to the TOS, including the
`agreement to arbitrate.
`Further, Camacho would be bound by his counsel’s agreement even if his counsel
`acted without authority