Case 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD Document 17 Filed 05/02/22 PageID.167 Page 1 of 35
`
`
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`L. Timothy Fisher (State Bar No. 191626)
`1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
`Walnut Creek, California 94596
`Telephone: (925) 300-4455
`Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
`E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs
`
`(Additional counsel appear below signature line)
`
`
`
`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
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ BRIEF IN
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
`DISMISS
`
`Hon. Michael M. Anello
`
`Date: May 16, 2022
`Time: 2:30 p.m.
`Courtroom: 3C
`
`
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO 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 17 Filed 05/02/22 PageID.168 Page 2 of 35
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1
`II.
`III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 2
`A. Defendants’ Arbitration Arguments Fail. ............................................. 2
`B.
`Limited Discovery Is Unnecessary. ...................................................... 7
`C. Defendants’ Use of Plaintiffs’ Identities Violates ARPA and §
`3344. ...................................................................................................... 8
`1.
`Defendants’ Free Previews Violate ARPA and § 3344. ........... 10
`(a)
`The “use” requirement is satisfied. ................................ 10
`(b)
`requirement is satisfied. .................................................. 11
`(c) Cotta pleads an economic injury. ................................... 12
`2.
`Apply. ........................................................................................ 13
`3.
`Exemptions. ............................................................................... 13
`(a)
`ARPA’s public interest exemption does not apply. ......... 13
`(b) ARPA’s expressive work exemption does not apply. ...... 14
`4.
`The Allegations Are Within ARPA’s Territorial Scope. .......... 15
`D. Defendants Are Not Immune Under the CDA. ................................... 17
`Defendants’ Ads Are Not Protected by the First Amendment. .......... 19
`E.
`Defendants’ Challenged Conduct Is Commercial Speech. ....... 19
`1.
`2.
`ARPA and § 3344 Survive Intermediate Scrutiny. ................... 21
`
`The “for purposes of advertising or selling”
`
`Section 3344’s “Public Affairs” Exception Does Not
`
`Defendants’ Ads Do Not Fall Under ARPA’s
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`
` CASE NO. 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD
`i
`
`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 17 Filed 05/02/22 PageID.169 Page 3 of 35
`
`
`
`F.
`Clause. ................................................................................................. 22
`G.
`Claims .................................................................................................. 23
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 25
`
`ARPA and § 3344 Do Not Violate the Dormant Commerce
`
`California’s Anti-SLAPP Statute Does Not Bar Plaintiffs’
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`
` CASE NO. 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD
`ii
`
`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 17 Filed 05/02/22 PageID.170 Page 4 of 35
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`CASES
`Am. Beverage Ass’n v. Snyder,
`735 F.3d 362 (6th Cir. 2013) ................................................................................ 23
`Am. Booksellers Found v. Dean,
`342 F.3d 96 (2nd Cir. 2003) ................................................................................. 23
`Aspire Home Healthcare, Inc. v. Therastaff, LLC,
`2014 WL 12539703 (S.D. Cal. 2014) .................................................................... 2
`Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the W. Dist. of Tex.,
`571 U.S. 49 (2013) ................................................................................................. 2
`Bd. of Trs. of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox,
`492 U.S. 469 (1989) ............................................................................................. 21
`Blanton v. Womancare,
`38 Cal. 3d 396 (1985) ............................................................................................. 5
`Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp.,
`463 U.S. 60 (1983) ........................................................................................ 19, 21
`Bosley Medical Institute, Inc. v. Kremer,
`403 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2005) ................................................................................ 24
`Bosley v. Wildwett.com,
`310 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ohio 2004) ......................................................... 21, 22
`Boyd v. Spokeo, Inc.,
`2021 WL 7209360 (Cal. Super. Nov. 30, 2021) ........................................... 20, 24
`Boykin v. Fam. Dollar Stores of Mich., LLC,
`3 F.4th 832 (6th Cir. 2021) ..................................................................................... 2
`Brennan v. Opus Bank,
`2013 WL 2445430 (W.D. Wash. June 5, 2013) ..................................................... 2
`Callahan v. PeopleConnect, Inc.,
`2021 WL 1979161 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2021) .......................................... 4, 5, 7, 8
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`
` CASE NO. 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD
`iii
`
`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 17 Filed 05/02/22 PageID.171 Page 5 of 35
`
`
`
`Callahan v. PeopleConnect, Inc.,
`2021 WL 5050079 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2021). .............................................. passim
`
`
`Callahan v. PeopleConnect,
` 2022 WL 823594 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2022) .................................................. passim
`Cargile v. Serial Prods., LLC,
`2019 WL 9904448 (N.D. Ala. 2019) .................................................................... 15
`Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n,
`447 U.S 557 (1980) .............................................................................................. 21
`Charles v. City of Los Angeles,
`697 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2010) .............................................................................. 21
`Comer v. Micor, Inc.,
`436 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................ 3
`Davis v. Electronic Arts Inc.,
`775 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2015) .............................................................................. 25
`Demetriades v. Yelp, Inc.,
`228 Cal. App. 4th 294 (2014) ............................................................................... 24
`Dennis v. MyLife.Com, Inc.,
`2021 WL 6049830 (D.N.J. 2021) .................................................................. 18, 19
`Dex Media W., Inc. v. City of Seattle,
`696 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................ 20
`Dobrowolski v. Intelius, Inc.,
`2018 WL 11185289 (N.D. Ill. 2018) .................................................................... 11
`Dyer v. Childress,
`147 Cal. App. 4th 1273 (2007) ............................................................................. 25
`Estate of Fuller v. Maxfield & Oberton Holdings, LLC,
`906 F. Supp. 2d 997 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .................................................................. 13
`Ex parte Alfa Fin. Corp.,
`762 So.2d 850 (Ala. 1999) ................................................................................... 14
`Ex parte Old Republic Sur. Co.,
`733 So. 2d 881 (Ala. 1999) .................................................................................. 16
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`
` CASE NO. 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD
`iv
`
`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 17 Filed 05/02/22 PageID.172 Page 6 of 35
`
`
`
`Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC,
`521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................. 17, 18, 19
`Ferguson v. Friendfinders, Inc.,
`94 Cal. App. 4th 1255 (2002) ............................................................................... 23
`Fischer v. Instant Checkmate LLC,
`2022 WL 971479 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2022) ......................................................... 10
`Fraley v. Facebook, Inc.,
`830 F. Supp. 2d 785 (N.D. Cal. 2011) .................................................................. 12
`FTC v. Accusearch Inc.,
`570 F.3d 1187 (10th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 18
`Gonzalez v. Google LLC,
`2 F.4th 871 (9th Cir. 2021) ................................................................................... 19
`Healy v. Beer Inst., Inc.,
`491 U.S. 324 (1989) ............................................................................................. 22
`Hunt v. City of Los Angeles,
`638 F. 3d 703 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................... 19
`Huon v. Denton,
`841 F.3d 733 (7th Cir. 2016) ......................................................................... 17, 18
`In re Facebook Biometric Info. Priv. Litig.,
`326 F.R.D. 535 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ......................................................................... 16
`IMDb.com Inc. v. Becerra,
`962 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2012) .............................................................................. 20
`In re Facebook Biometric Info. Priv. Litig.,
`2018 WL 2197546 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2018) ..................................................... 22
`In re Henson,
`869 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2017) ............................................................................3, 4
`Indep. Living Res. Ctr. San Francisco v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`2019 WL 3430656 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ...................................................................... 7
`JAMS, Inc. v. Superior Ct.,
`1 Cal. App. 5th 984 (2016) ................................................................................... 24
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`
` CASE NO. 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD Document 17 Filed 05/02/22 PageID.173 Page 7 of 35
`
`
`
`Jewett v. Cap. One Bank,
`113 Cal. App. 4th 805 (2003) ............................................................................... 25
`Kellman v. Spokeo Inc.,
`2022 WL 1157500 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2022).............................................. passim
`Kimzey v. Yelp! Inc.,
`836 F.3d 1263 (9th Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 19
`Knapke v. PeopleConnect Inc.,
`2021 WL 3510350 (W.D. Wash. 2021) ....................................................... passim
`Knapke v. PeopleConnect Inc.,
`2021 WL 4439479 (W.D. Wash. 2021) ................................................................. 7
`Kolebuck-Utz v. Whitepages Inc.,
`2021 WL 1575219 (W.D. Wash. 2021) ....................................................... passim
`Krause v. RocketReach, LLC,
`2021 WL 4282700 (N.D. Ill. 2021) .............................................................. passim
`Kristensen v. Credit Payment Servs., Inc.,
`879 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2018) ................................................................................ 6
`L.A. Taxi Coop., Inc. v. The Indep. Taxi Owners Ass’n. of Los Angeles,
`239 Cal. App. 4th 918 (2015) ............................................................................... 25
`Lemmon v. Snap, Inc.,
`995 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2021) ....................................................................... 17, 18
`Lukis v. Whitepages Inc.,
`454 F. Supp. 3d 746 (N.D. Ill. 2020) ............................................................ passim
`
`
`Lukis v. Whitepages Inc.
` 2020 WL 6287369 (ND. Ill. Oct. 27, 2020) ......................................................... 20
`MaryCLE, LLC v. First Choice Internet, Inc.,
`890 A.2d 818 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2006) ............................................................ 23
`McCarthy v. Recordex Serv., Inc.,
`80 F.3d 842 (3d Cir. 1996) ............................................................................ 4, 5, 7
`McRae v. Security Pac. Hous. Servs., Inc.,
`628 So.2d 429 (Ala. 1993) ................................................................................... 15
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`
` CASE NO. 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD
`vi
`
`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 17 Filed 05/02/22 PageID.174 Page 8 of 35
`
`
`
`Mindys Cosmetics, Inc. v. Dakar,
`611 F.3d 590 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................ 25
`Mitchum v. Hudgens,
`533 So. 2d 194 (Ala. 1988) .................................................................................... 6
`Monroy v. Shutterfly, Inc.,
`2017 WL 4099846 (N.D. Ill. 2017) ...................................................................... 23
`Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc.,
`763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................ 4
`Nieman v. Versuslaw, Inc.,
`512 F. App’x 635 (7th Cir. 2013) ......................................................................... 11
`Old Republic Sur. Co. v. Auction Way Sales, Inc.,
`733 So. 2d 878 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997) ........................................................... 16, 17
`Retail Prop. Tr. v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am.,
`768 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................ 17
`Sessa v. Ancestry.com Operations Inc.,
`2021 WL 4245359 (D. Nev. 2021) ........................................................ 1, 9, 12, 17
`Siegel v. Zoominfo Techs., LLC,
`2021 WL 4306148 (N.D. Ill. 2021) ....................................................... 1, 9, 10, 12
`State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Motley,
`909 So. 2d 806 (Ala. 2005) ........................................................................... 14, 15
`Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animal Feeds Int’l Corp.,
`559 U.S. 662 (2010) ............................................................................................... 2
`Thompson v. Getty Images (US), Inc.,
`2013 WL 3321612 (N.D. Ill. 2013) ...................................................................... 11
`Trimedica Int’l, Inc.,
`107 Cal. App. 4th 595 (2003) ............................................................................... 25
`U.S. ex rel. Welch v. My Left Foot Children’s Therapy, LLC,
`871 F.3d 791 (9th Cir. 2017) .................................................................................. 2
`U.S., ex rel. Osheroff v. HealthSpring, Inc.,
`938 F.Supp.2d 724 (M.D. Tenn. 2013) ................................................................ 10
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`
` CASE NO. 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD
`vii
`
`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 17 Filed 05/02/22 PageID.175 Page 9 of 35
`
`
`
`Vrdolyak v. Avvo, Inc.,
`206 F.Supp. 3d 1384 (N.D. Ill. 2016) ................................................................... 20
`Washington Mut. Bank, FA v. Sup. Ct.,
`24 Cal. 4th 906 (2001) ............................................................................................ 3
`STATUTES
`47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) ............................................................................................... 18
`Ala. Code § 6-5-772(a) .............................................................................................. 8
`Ala. Code § 6-5-772(b) .............................................................................................. 1
`Ala. Code § 6-5-773(b) ..................................................................................... 14, 15
`Cal. Civ. Code § 3344 ...................................................................................... passim
`Cal. Civ. Proc. § 425.16(e)(3)-(4) ............................................................................ 25
`Cal. Civ. Proc. § 425.17(c) ............................................................................... 24, 25
`Cal. Civ. Proc. § 425.17(c)(2) .................................................................................. 24
`RULES
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 ....................................................................................................... 4
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 ....................................................................................................... 4
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) .............................................................................................. 2
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`Restatement (Second) of Agency § 4(3) .................................................................... 4
`Restatement (Second) of Agency § 186 ................................................................4, 5
`Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.04(2)(b) ............................................................. 4
`Restatement (Third) of Agency § 4.03 ...................................................................... 6
`Restatement (Third) of Agency § 6.03 ..................................................................4, 5
`
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`
` CASE NO. 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD
`viii
`
`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 17 Filed 05/02/22 PageID.176 Page 10 of 35
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Alabama and California’s right of publicity statutes prohibit the use of an
`individual’s identity to advertise or sell products, merchandise, goods, and services.
`Ala. Code § 6-5-772(b); Cal. Civ. Code § 3344(a). USSearch.com and Intelius.com,
`the websites operated by Defendants, use the identities of Alabama and California
`residents in free preview ads to promote their subscription services. Because these
`individuals never consented to this use of their identities, Plaintiff Jose Medina
`Camacho alleges that Defendants have violated his and other Alabama residents’
`rights under the Alabama Right of Publicity Act (“ARPA”), and Plaintiff Rhonda
`Cotta brings identical allegations on behalf of California residents under § 3344(a).
`Multiple courts have already examined virtually identical allegations and
`concluded that the conduct alleged here is, under multiple states’ right of publicity
`laws, “a textbook example… of using a person’s identity for a commercial purpose.”
`Lukis v. Whitepages Inc., 454 F. Supp. 3d 746, 760 (N.D. Ill. 2020) (applying
`Illinois’ right of publicity statute), reconsideration denied, 2020 WL 6287369 (N.D.
`Ill. 2020); Krause v. RocketReach, LLC, 2021 WL 4282700 (N.D. Ill. 2021) (same);
`Siegel v. Zoominfo Techs., LLC, 2021 WL 4306148 (N.D. Ill. 2021) (same); Kellman
`v. Spokeo Inc., 2022 WL 1157500 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2022) (applying § 3344(a)
`and Indiana and Ohio’s right to Publicity Statutes); Kolebuck-Utz v. Whitepages Inc.,
`2021 WL 1575219 (W.D. Wash. 2021) (applying Ohio’s right of publicity statute);
`Knapke v. PeopleConnect Inc., 2021 WL 3510350 (W.D. Wash. 2021) (same); Sessa
`v. Ancestry.com Operations Inc., 2021 WL 4245359 (D. Nev. 2021) (applying
`Nevada’s right of publicity statute).
`Defendants’ motion to dismiss rehashes arguments under state and federal law
`that have been almost universally rejected by courts across the country. There is no
`reason for this Court to strike a different path. The motion should be denied.
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`Defendants sell subscription access to information about individuals on
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
` CASE NO. 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD
`1
`
`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 17 Filed 05/02/22 PageID.177 Page 11 of 35
`
`
`
`Intelius.com and USSearch.com (collectively, the “People Search Websites” or
`“PSW”). Compl. ¶ 1. The information is compiled, in part, from public and private
`sources. Id. ¶ 25. When a non-subscriber visits the PSWs and searches by first and
`last name, the site displays a list of free previews of individuals found within its
`records that have the same name. Id. ¶¶ 27, 31. Each free preview contains an
`individual’s name and other uniquely identifying information, such as age, location,
`and family member names. Id. Once a user selects an individual, the site shows a
`subscription checkout page. Id. ¶¶ 28, 32. Unlike certain other websites, there is no
`option or ability to purchase a single report about the searched-for individual; a user
`can only subscribe to the PSW service. Nor did Defendants obtain consent before
`using any individual’s name or information in the free preview ads. Id. ¶¶ 35, 41.
`Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit after they discovered that their identifying information
`was used on the PSWs in this fashion. Id. ¶ 39.
`III. ARGUMENT
`A. Defendants’ Arbitration Arguments Fail.
`Defendants seek to dismiss Mr. Camacho’s right of publicity claim against
`
`them based on a purported arbitration agreement. Whether or not Federal Rule of
`Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) is the proper vehicle for this argument,1 it fails. Defendants
`fail to establish that Mr. Camacho agreed to arbitrate this dispute. It is a “basic
`precept that arbitration is a matter of consent, not coercion.” U.S. ex rel. Welch v. My
`Left Foot Children’s Therapy, LLC, 871 F.3d 791, 796 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Stolt-
`Nielsen S.A. v. Animal Feeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 681 (2010)). Litigants cannot
`
`
`1 See Boykin v. Fam. Dollar Stores of Mich., LLC, 3 F.4th 832, 837-38 (6th Cir.
`2021) (“[P]arties should not use Rule 12(b)(3) to raise an arbitration agreement.”
`(citing Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49,
`55-57 (2013)); see also Aspire Home Healthcare, Inc. v. Therastaff, LLC, 2014 WL
`12539703, at *4 (S.D. Cal. 2014) (Anello, J.) (denying Rule 12(b)(3) motion
`attempting to invoke arbitration agreement because “[t]he proper avenue through
`which to discuss the effect of [an] arbitration clause … is a motion to compel
`arbitration.”). Neither the district court nor the Ninth Circuit authority cited by
`Defendants squarely addresses this question. See Brennan v. Opus Bank, 2013 WL
`2445430 (W.D. Wash. June 5, 2013), aff’d, 796 F.3d 1125, 1129 (9th Cir. 2015).
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
` CASE NO. 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD
`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 17 Filed 05/02/22 PageID.178 Page 12 of 35
`
`
`
`be compelled to arbitrate disputes that they did not agree to arbitrate.
`Here, Defendants do not contend that Mr. Camacho agreed to arbitration by
`checking a box or clicking a button on the PSWs themselves, and have not even
`introduced evidence that Mr. Camacho ever used their website. Instead, Defendants
`argue that Mr. Camacho is bound to arbitration clauses in the PSW Terms of Use
`(“TOU”) because one of his attorneys, Kevin Tucker, allegedly agreed to the TOU
`when he searched Plaintiffs’ names on the PSWs. See Dkt. 16-2 ¶¶ 16-17..
`However, it is “the general rule that a nonsignatory is not bound by an
`arbitration clause.” Comer v. Micor, Inc., 436 F.3d 1098, 1103-04 (9th Cir. 2006).
`Although agency principles can be an exception to this general rule, id. at 1104 n.10,
`the Ninth Circuit recently rejected a similar argument on facts nearly identical to
`those here. In Callahan v. PeopleConnect, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
`court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration based on the actions of a plaintiff’s
`attorneys. 2022 WL 823594 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2022). The court explained that
`whether an attorney-agent’s agreement to arbitrate can bind a client-principal “is a
`matter of state agency law” and “[t]he California Supreme Court has held that
`attorneys may not impair their client’s substantial rights—including by binding the
`court to arbitration—without the client’s consent.” Id. at *1.
`Applying basic agency rules, the same is true here. Under applicable choice-
`of-law principles, the Court must analyze this question under California agency law
`because Defendants have not attempted to, and cannot, demonstrate a material
`difference between California and Alabama law.2
`
`
`2 Defendants rely on Alabama law (where Mr. Camacho resides), but do not offer
`any choice-of-law analysis to support their decision. As a federal court in diversity,
`the Court must apply California choice-of-law principles, under which California
`agency law governs this dispute unless the laws of another state “‘materially differ[]
`from the law of California.’” In re Henson, 869 F.3d at 1059-60 (quoting
`Washington Mut. Bank, FA v. Sup. Ct., 24 Cal. 4th 906, 919 (2001)). Defendants
`have not attempted to demonstrate a material difference between Alabama and
`California law and, as explained below, none exists. Although the PSW TOU
`between Defendants and Mr. Tucker specify that Washington law applies to
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`
` CASE NO. 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD
`3
`
`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 17 Filed 05/02/22 PageID.179 Page 13 of 35
`
`
`
`Here, Defendants claim that Mr. Camacho’s attorney, Mr. Tucker, agreed to
`arbitrate by searching for Mr. Camacho’s name on their website. Dkt. 16-2 ¶¶ 16-
`17. But Defendants introduce no evidence that Mr. Tucker held himself out to
`Defendants as Mr. Camacho’s agent. Thus, at best, Mr. Camacho was an undisclosed
`principal.3 “[A]n undisclosed principal does not become a party to a contract when
`the agent does not intend to act for the principal.” Restatement (Third) of Agency §
`6.03 cmt. c. There is no evidence Mr. Tucker intended to bind Mr. Camacho to the
`PSW TOU. See Restatement (Second) of Agency § 186 cmt. c. (“The principal
`becomes a party to the transaction only if it is proved that the agent intended to act
`upon his account.”).
`In fact, Mr. Tucker did not have any such intent. Rather, Mr. Tucker used the
`PSWs to satisfy his Rule 11 obligations by investigating Mr. Camacho’s claim before
`filing the lawsuit, an elementary professional duty—not a basis to compel
`arbitration. See Callahan v. PeopleConnect, Inc., 2021 WL 1979161, at *6 (N.D.
`Cal. May 18, 2021) (“The Court is troubled by [Defendant’s] suggestion that a
`plaintiff’s access to a judicial forum may be cut off simply because counsel for the
`plaintiff fulfilled a duty under Rules 11 and 12 to investigate prior to filing suit.”),
`aff’d, 2022 WL 823594 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2022). Indeed, attorneys regularly engage
`service providers while investigating and prosecuting cases for clients; and it is the
`lawyers—not the clients—who are bound to the related agreements. For example, if
`a lawyer orders medical records during litigation, the lawyer is bound to the payment
`agreement, not the client. See, e.g., McCarthy v. Recordex Serv., Inc., 80 F.3d 842,
`852-54 (3d Cir. 1996) (holding that purchase agreements only bind lawyers, not their
`
`
`interpretation of its terms (see, e.g., Exs. C & D ¶ 14), that clause does not apply
`because Mr. Camacho, as a non-signatory, is not bound by the agreement. See In re
`Henson, 869 F.3d 1052, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding “court erred by applying
`[contractual] choice-of-law provision” when existence of agreement was disputed);
`see also Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171, 1175 (9th Cir. 2014).
`3
`See Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.04(2)(b) (“A principal is undisclosed
`if, when an agent and a third party interact, the third party has no notice that the
`agent is acting for a principal.”); Restatement (Second) of Agency § 4(3) (same).
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
` CASE NO. 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD
`4
`
`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 17 Filed 05/02/22 PageID.180 Page 14 of 35
`
`
`
`clients, because “each client hired his or her attorney to file a lawsuit on his or her
`behalf and to protect the client’s legal interests,” not “as purchasing agents whose
`sole objective and function was to buy photocopies for the clients”).
`Under Defendants’ view that any action taken by a lawyer while representing
`a client is done as an agent of that client, Mr. Camacho would be bound not only to
`the PSW TOU, but also to Microsoft’s service agreement when Mr. Tucker drafted
`their complaint using Microsoft Word. That is absurd. Clients contemplating or
`engaging in litigation do not hire attorneys to enter into agreements with consulting
`experts, legal research databases, or e-discovery platform providers; they hire
`attorneys to investigate and litigate their claims. See id. at 853 (“It is clear that
`attorneys ‘exercise exclusive control over the manner of performing their legal work,
`being responsible to the client only for the result.”’). Here, Mr. Tucker was not
`retained by Plaintiffs to enter into the PSW TOU; he and other counsel were retained
`to investigate and file a lawsuit, just like the attorneys in McCarthy.
`
`What’s more, even if Mr. Tucker had intended to bind Mr. Camacho to the
`PSW TOU, Mr. Camacho still would not be bound because Mr. Tucker had no
`authority to bind him. An undisclosed principal is bound to a contract entered into
`on his or her behalf only if the agent is acting within his authority. Restatement
`(Second) of Agency § 186; Restatement (Third) of Agency § 6.03. But absent a
`client’s express authorization to agree to arbitration—of which there is no evidence
`here—“an attorney, merely by virtue of his employment as such, has no apparent
`authority to bind his client to an agreement for arbitration.” Blanton v. Womancare,
`38 Cal. 3d 396, 407 (1985); see Callahan, 2021 WL 1979161, at *5-6 (denying
`people search website’s motion to compel arbitration based on Blanton).
`There is no material difference between California and Alabama law in this
`regard. The California Supreme Court’s decision in Blanton was premised on the
`general rule that “[a]n attorney is not authorized … merely by virtue of his retention
`in litigation, to impair the client’s substantial rights or the cause of action itself.” 38
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
` CASE NO. 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00209-MMA-MDD Document 17 Filed 05/02/22 PageID.181 Page 15 of 35
`
`
`
`Cal. 3d at 404 (quotations omitted). Alabama courts follow the same general
`principles. See Mitchum v. Hudgens, 533 So. 2d 194, 199 (Ala. 1988) (“An attorney
`cannot settle a client’s action or claim or prejudice a client’s rights without
`authorization from the client.”) (quotations omitted). Though no Alabama court
`appears to have applied the Mitchum rule to an arbitration agreement, that is of no
`significance because “[t]his rule . . . is a generally applicable rule; it does not single
`out arbitration agreements . . . .” Callahan, 2022 WL 823594, at *1.
`
`Last, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs ratified Mr. Tucker’s purported
`agreement to the TOU. But an act is ratifiable only “if the actor acted or purported
`to act as an agent on the person’s behalf.” Kristensen v. Credit Payment Servs., Inc.,
`879 F.3d 1010, 1014 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Restatement (Third) of Agency § 4.03).
`“This limits the range of ratifiable acts to those done by an actor who is an agent or
`who is not an agent but pretends to be.” Id. § 4.01 cmt. b. In other words, “‘[w]hen
`an actor is not an agent