TradeComet.Com LLC v. Google, Inc.

Filing 7

FORM C, on behalf of Appellant TradeComet.Com LLC, FILED. Service date 03/29/2010 by CM/ECF.[18123] [10-911]

UNITED S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E S E C O N D C I R C U I T CIVIL APPEAL PRE-ARGUMENT STATEMENT (.'ORM C)
I . S E E N O T I C E ON R E V E R S E .
C a s e Caption:

2. P L E A S E T Y P E O R P R I N T .
District Court o r Agency:

3. S T A P L E A L L A D D I T I O N A L PAGES
Judge:

T r a d e C o m e t . c o m , LLC, Plaintiff/Appellant V. G o o g l e , Inc., D e f e n d a n t !A p p e l l e e

S.D.N.Y.
D a t e the O r d e r o r J u d g m e n t A p p e a l e d f r o m was E n t e r e d o n t h e D o c k e t :

Sidney H. Stein
D i s t r i c t C o u r t D o c k e t No.:

March 1 2 , 2 0 1 0
D a t e the N o t i c e o f A p p e a l w a s F i l e d :

09-cv-1400
Is this a C r o s s A p p e a l ?

M a r c h 15, 2 0 1 0
Counsel's Name:

DYe;
Fa;>; No.:

[!JNo
E-mail:

Attorncy(s) for Appcllant(s):
IZIPlaintiff

Address:

T e l e p h o n e No.:

o

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Defendant

7 0 0 S i x t h St., N W W a s h i n g t o n , DC 20001

[phone]

[phone]

Atlorney(s) for
Appcllcc(s):

Counsel's Name:

Address:

T e l e p h o n e No.:

Fax No.:

E-mail:

D PlaintitT
[ZJ Defendant
Has Transcript Been Prepared?

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & R o s a t i P.C.

1301 A v e n u e o f t h e A m e r i c a s ( 2 1 2 ) 9 9 9 - 5 8 0 0 ( 2 1 2 ) 9 9 9 - 5 8 9 9 40th Floor N e w York, N Y 1 0 0 1 9

Approx. Number o f

Number of

Has this mallcr been before this Circuit previously? [fYes , provide the following: Case Name: 2d Cir. Docket No.:

Yes

Transcript Pages:

27

Exhibits Appended to Transcript:

De; 0

No

N/A

Reporter Citation: (i.e., F.3d o r Fed. App.)

ADDENDUM " A " : C O U N S E L M U S T ATTACH T O T H I S F O R M : ( I ) A BRfEF, BUT NOT P E R F U N C T O R Y , D E S C R I P T I O N O F T i l E NATURE O F T H E A C T I O N ; (2) T H E R E S U L T B E L O W ; (3) A C O I ' Y OJ. T H E N O T I C E O F A P P E A L AND A C U R R E N T C O P Y O F T H E L O W E R C O U R T D O C K E T S H E E T ; AND (4) A C O P Y O F ALL R E L E V A N T O P I N I O N S / O R D E R S F O R M I N G T i l E BASIS F O R T H I S A P P E A L , I N C L U m N C T R A N S C R l P T S O F O R D E R S ISSUED F R O M T i l E BENCII O R IN C I I A M B E R S . A D D E N D U M " 8 " : C O U N S E L M U S T A T T A C H T O T H l S FORJ\I A L I S T O F T H E ISSUES P R O P O S E D T O BE RAISED ON A P P E A L , AS W E L L AS T H E A P P L I C A B L E A P P E L L A T E STANDARD O F R E V I E W F O R E A C I I P R O P O S E D ISSUE.

P A R T A: J U R I S D I C T I O N
l . Federal Jurisdiction

2. Aprcllate Jurisdiction

D III

U.S. a party Federal question (V,S. not a party)

DDivCl1>ity D Other (specify):

III
D

Final Decision Interlocutory Decision Appealable As o f Right

D

Order Certified by District Judge (i.e., Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b» Other (spedfy):

D

IMPORTANT. COMPLETE AND SIGN REVERSE SIDE OF THIS FORM.

PART B : D I S T R I C T C O U R T D I S P O S I T I O N I, Slage o f Proceedings 2, Type o f Judgment/Order Appealc>d

(ChC{:k a s m a n y a s a p p l y )

)

Relief !2llnjunetions:

121 0 0

Pre-trial During trial After trial

o Default judgment

B

~ Dismis.~alljurisdietion Dismissallmerit Summary judgment Declaratury Judgment

§

D Judgment I Decision o r t h e Court D Jury verdict
Judgment NOV Directed vt-rdict Other (speCIfy):

o Lhmages,
121 0 0
Sought: $~ Granted: $ --Denied: $ - - -

121 Permancnt

o Preliminary o Denied

PARTC: NATURE OF SUIT (Check as many as apply)
1. Federal Statutes

2. Torts

3. Contracts DAdmiraltyl Maritime DArbitration

4 . Prisoner Petitions

,

ntitrust ankruptcy anks/Banking ivil Rights ommerce, 'ncrgy ommodities ther (specify):

o Communications
Trademarli: Election Soc, Sccurity Environmental

~ Co" "rmht 0 rPa<ewt' " C py ig « P o t n

~ F,~dom o f [ " f ~ " , ' " A < '

B

Immigration Labor OSHA Securities
T~

D FELA D Products Liability

o Adamiitmmlleyl Mi o Asesfraamlat!tion u D

0

~omml«y""nt Emp o me

§
0
. ; No

o Other (Specify):

lnsurdnce Negotiable Instruments [ } J t h t - r Specify

Civil Rights Habeas Corpus Mandatnus Parole Vacate Sentence Other

S. Other

§

o Forfeiture/Penalty
Real PropCl'ty Treaty (specify): Other (specify):

6 General Arbitration Anomey Disqualification Class Action Counsel Fees Sharchol<!er Derivative TransfL-r

t:~r appeal r a i s [ { j t i t u t i o n a l issuers)?
Yes

.

Will appeal raise a matter o f first

.,

n,rcsslOn. Yes

~
. ; No

I. Is a n y m a i l e r r e l a t i v e to t h i s a p p e a l still p e n d i n g b e l o w ' r O e s , specify:

f2}0

2. T o y o u r k n o w l e d g e , is t h e r e a n y c a s e p r e s e n t l y p e n d i n g o r a b o u t to b e b r o u g h t b e f o r e t h i s C o u n o r a n o t h e r c o u n o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c y which: ( A ) A r i s e s from s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e s a m e c a s e o r c o n t r o v e r s y a s t h i s a p p e a l ?

D"

(B)

I n v o l v e s an i s s u e t h a t is s u b s t a n t i a l l y s i m i l a r o r r d a t e d t o an i s s u e in t h i s a p p e a l ' l

DYes

[2}0 [2]No

I f yes, state w h e t h e r D " A , " o r O " B , " o r [ ] b o t h a r e a p p l i c a b l e , a n d p r o v i d e in t h e s p a c e s b e l o w t h e f o l l o w i n g i n f o n n a t i o n o n t h e other a e t i o n ( s ) :
Case Name:

I

[)Qckct No.

I

Citation:

Court or Agency:

Name o f Appellant:

Date: March 29, 2010

Signature o f Counsel o f R c r o r d : / s / C h a r l e s F. Rule

NOTICE TO COUNSEL
O n c e y o u h a v e filed y o u r NOlice o f A p p e a l w i l h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r t h e T a x C o u r t , you h a \ ' e o n l y 14 da)'S in w h i c h t o c o m p l e t e I h e f o l l o w i n g important steps: I. 2. 3. C o m p l e t e t h i s C i v i l A p p e a l P r e - A r g u m e n t S t a t e m e n t ( F o n n C ) ; s e r v e i t u p o n all p a n i c s , a n d f i l e t h e o r i g i n a l w i t h t h e C l e r k o f t h e S e c o n d C i r c u i t . File t h e o r i g i n a l o f t h e C o u n o f A p p e a l s T r a n s c r i p t I n f o n n a t i o n i C i v i l A p p e a l F o n n ( F o n n D ) with t h e C l e r k o f t h e S e c o n d C i r c u i t . P a y t h e $ 4 5 5 d o c k e t i n g f e e t o t h e C l e r k o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t u n l e s s y o u a r c a u t h o r i z e d t o p r o s e c u t e the a p p e a l w i t h o u t p a y m e n t . P L E A S E N O T E : I F Y O U no N O T C O M P L Y W I T H T I I E S E R E Q U I R E M E N T S W I T H I N 14 D A Y S , Y O U R A P P E A L W I L L B E m S M I S S E D . SEE L O C A L R U L E 12.1.

ADDENDUM "A"
(1) D e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e N a t u r e o f t h e A c t i o n : Plaintiff-Appcllant T r a d e C o m c t . c o m L L C ( " T r a d e C o m e t " ) b r o u g h t this action u n d e r Sections 4 and 16 o f the Clayton Act, 15 U . S . c . §§ 15, 26, to recover treble d a m a g e s and the costs o f this suit, including reasonable a t t o r n e y s ' fees, against D e f e n d a n t - A p p e l l e e Google Inc. ( " G o o g l e " ) for injuries sustained by TradeComet by reason o f G oo g l e ' s violation o f Sections I and 2 o f the Sherman Act, \ 5 U.S.C. §§ \ , 2 . Google, the dominant p r o v i d e r o f internet search-based advertising in the United States, engaged in various illegal exclusionary c o n d u c t to exclude T r a d e C o m e t , o p e r a t o r o f a vertical business-to-business search engine, from t h e search advertising market. T r a d e C o m e t alleged Google has ( I ) monopolized the search advertising market in violation o f Section 2 o f the Sherman Act, (2) a t t e m p t e d to monopolize the search advertising market in violation o f Section 2 o f the Sherman Act, and (3) executed unreasonable agreements in restraint o f trade in violation o f Section I o f the Sherman Act. (2) R e s u l t B e l o w : Acting upon G o o g l e ' s motion to dismiss, the district c o u r t dismissed T r a d e C o m e t ' s c o m p l a i n t u n d e r R u l e s 1 2 ( b ) ( I ) a n d 12(b)(3) o f the F e d e r a l R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e .

IN T i l E UNITED S T A T E S D I S T R I C T C O U R T f O R T i l E S O U T H E R N D I S T R I C T OF N E W YORK

TRAIlECOMICT.COM LLC,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-cv-1400(SI-IS)

Plaintiff

lotice o f Appeal

GOOGLE II'C.,
Df!jel1d(I1rl

Notice is hereby g i n n thIll Trndecomct.com L l C . P l a i n t i l I in thl.' abo"C-n:.!med casco hereby appeals to the United Stales Court o f Appeals for the Second Circuit from the COlln"s
Opinion a n d O r d e r entered in Ihis action on the 5 11\ d a y o f March 20 I0 ( D k t No. 38). and thl,.' Clerk"s Final J u d g m c m entered in this action on the l i h duy o f March ( D k t No. JIl), granling D e f e n d a n t ' s Motion to Dismiss b<lscd o n lack o f suhjecl m.lttcr jurisdic.tion and i m p r o p e r venue.

Rcsp(,.'ct I l l y S u b m i t l . : d .

J o n a t h a n Kanh:r Joseph J. B i n i Daniel J. l-lowlcy C A D W A L A D E R . W I C K E R S H A M & T A n LLP 7 0 0 S i x t h S t r e e t . NW
Wnshington. DC 20001

Chaclc~:f
(202) 86:!-2200 ( 1 0 2 ) 862-2400

Tel: Fax:

APPEAL.CLOSED.ECF

u.s, District C o u r t
United States District C o u r t for t h e S o u t h e r n District o f New Y o r k (Foley S q u a r e ) C I V I L D O C K E T F O R CASE #: 1:09-cv-OI400-SHS

T r a d c C o m e t . C o m L L C v. G o o g l e , Inc. A s s i g n e d to: J u d g e S i d n e y H. S t e i n C a u s e : 15:2 A n t i t r u s t L i t i g a t i o n

D a t e Filed: 0211 7/2009 D a t e T e n n i n a t c d : 0311212010 Jury Demand: P l a i n t i f f N a t u r e o f Suit: 4 1 0 A n t i - T r u s t Jurisdiction: Federal Q u e s t i o n

Plaintiff TradeComet.Com LLC represented b y J o s e p h J R i a l
CadwaladcT, W i c k e r s h a m & T a f t , L L P (DC) 700 6th Street N.W. W a s h i n g t o n , DC 20001 ( 2 0 2 ) 862-2391 Fax: ( 2 0 2 ) 8 6 2 - 2 4 0 0 Email: j o s c p h . b i a l @ c w t . c o m LEADA7TORNEY A7TORNEY TO BE NOTICED

C h a r l e s F. Rule
Cadwaladcr, Wickersham & Taft, LLP (DC) 700 6th Street N.W. W a s h i n g t o n , D C 20001 (202) 8 6 2 - 2 4 2 0 Fax: ( 2 0 2 ) 8 6 2 - 2 4 0 0 Email: r i c k . r u l e @ c w t . c o m A7TORNEYTOBENOTICED

Daniel J o s e p h H o w l e y , J r .
C a d w a l a d c f , W i c k e r s h a m & Taft, LLP (DC) 700 6th Street N.W. W a s h i n g t o n , D C 20001 (202) 8 6 2 - 2 2 0 0 Fax: ( 2 0 2 ) 8 6 2 - 2 4 0 0 Email: d a n i e L h o w l e y @ c w t . c o m A7TORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J o n a t h a n Seth K a n t e r
C a d w a l a d e r , W i c k e r s h a m & Taft, LLP

hrtps:llccf. n y s d . u s c o u r t s . g o v / c g i - b i n I D k t R p l . p J ? 6 3 5 0 4 3 8 8 5 7 2 8 3 2 4 - L_961_0-1

(DC)

700 6th Street
NW.

Washington, DC 2000 1
(202) 8 6 2 - 2 2 0 0 Fax: ( 2 0 2 ) 8 6 2 - 2 4 0 0

Email: [e-mail]
P R O H A C VICE A T T O R N E Y TO B E NOTICED
V.
Defendant G o o g l e , Inc.

represented by Chul Pak Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati( 1301 Aye. o f the Americas) 1301 Avenue o f T h e Americas
New Y o r k , NY 10019 (212)-497-7726 Fax: ( 2 1 2 ) - 9 9 9 - 5 8 9 9

Email: [e-mail] LEAD A T T O R N E Y A T T O R N E Y TO B E NOTICED
J o n a t h a n M. J a c o b s o n W i l s o n S o n s i n i Goodrich & R o s a l i ( 130 I Ave. o f t h e Americas) 1301 Avenue o f T h e Americas N e w Y o r k , N Y 10019 212-999-5858 Fax: 2 1 2 - 9 9 9 - 5 8 9 9

EmaiL [e-mail] LEAD A T T O R N E Y A T T O R N E Y TO B E NOTICED
Sara Ciarelli Walsh

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosali( 1301 Ave. o f the Americas)
1301 Avenue o f T h e Americas N e w Y o r k , NY 10019 [phone] Fax: ( 2 1 2 ) 9 9 9 - 5 8 9 9

Email: [e-mail] LEAD ATTORNEY A T T O R N E Y TO BE NOTICED
Susan Abouchar Creighton Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 1700 K S t r e e t , N . W . Fifth Floor Washington, DC 2 0 0 0 6 (202) 8 8 0 0

h t t p s : l / e c f . n y s d . u s c o u r t s . g o v / c g i - b i n l D k t R p t . p l ? 6 3 5 0 4 3 8 8 5 7 2 8 3 2 4 - L_961_0-1

Fax: (202) 9 7 3 - 8 8 9 9 P R O H A C VICE A T T O R N E Y TO B E NOTICED

D a t e Filed
02/1 712009 0211712009 02/1712009 0211712009 0211712009 02/2012009 0212012009 0212312009

#
I

Docket T e x t

COMPLAINT against Googlc, Inc. (Filing Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 679502) Document filed by TradcComet.Com LLC.(ama) (Entered: 02/19/2009)
S U M M O N S I S S U E D as to Googlc, Inc. ( a m a ) (Entered: 0211912009)

Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox is so designated. (ama) (Entered: 02119/2009)
Case Designated ECF. (ama) (Entered: 02119/2009) 2 3 R U L E 7.1 C O R P O R A T E D I S C L O S U R E S T A T E M E N T . N o Corporate Parent.

Document filed by TradeComet.Com LLC.(ama) (Entered: 02/1912009)
N O T I C E O F A P P E A R A C E b y Daniel J o s e p h H o w l e y , J r o n b e h a l f o f T r a d e C o m e t . C o m LLC (Howley, Daniel) (Entered: 0212012009)

4

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Joseph J Sial on behalf o f TradeCom ct. Com LLC
(Bial, Joseph) (Entered: 02/20/2009)

5 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED Summons and Complaint served. Googlc, Inc. served on 2/1812009, answer due 3/t 012009. Service was accepted by Chad Malice, Clerk, NY State Secretary o f State. Document filed by TradeComct.Com LLC.
(Howley, Daniel) (Entered: 02123/2009) 6 7 8 N O T I C E OF A P P E A R A N C E by Sara Beth Ciarelli on b e h a l f o f Google, lne. (Ciarelli, Sara) (Entered: 02/26/2009)

0212612009 02/26/2009 02/26/2009

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Jonathan M. Jacobson on behalf o f Google, Inc.
(Jacobson, Jonatban) (Entered: 02/26/2009) N O T I C E OF C H A N G E OF A D D R E S S by Sara Beth Ciarelli on b e h a l f o f Google, Inc .. Ncw Address: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 1301 Avenue o f the Americas,

40th Floor, New York, New York, 10019, 212A97· 7759. (Ciarelli, Sara) (Entered:
02/26/2009) 0212612009 9

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Jonathan M. Jacobson on behalf o f Google, Inc .. New Address: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 1301 Avenue o f l h e Americas, 40th Floor, New York, New York, 10019, 212-497·7758. (Jacobson, Jonathan)
(Entered: 02126/2009) N O T I C E O F A P P E A R A N C E b y C b u l Pak 0 0 b e b a l f o f G o o g l e , I n e . ( P a k , C h u l ) (Entered: 0212712009)

02127/2009 0212712009

lQ II

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT to Judgc Sidney H. Stcin. Judge Naomi Rciee Buchwald is no longer assigned to the case due to a Judge's Recusal. (ama) (Entered:
03/0212009)

02/27/2009 03/0312009

13 12

MOTION for Jonathan S. Kanter to Appear Pro Hac Vicc. Document filed by
TradeComet.Corn LLC.(dle) (Entered: 03/05/2009)

STIPULATION AND ORDER For the reasons set forth in this order, Plaintiff and defendant agree that, Google will havc until April 7, 2009, to respond to the complaint

bnps:llccf. nysd. useourts. gov/egi -binfDktRpt. p 1?63 504 388 57283 2 4- L_ 9 6 1 _0-1

(a 28-day extension o f time). (Sigoed by Judge Sidney H. Stein on 313109) (mme) (Entered: 0310512009) 0310512009 0310912009 0311012009 0311012009

l i MOTION for Charles F. Rule to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Document filed b y
TradeComet.Com LLC.(dle) (Entered: 0310512009) 18 15 16
M O T I O N for S u s a n A. C r e i g h t o n to A p p e a r P r o H a c V i c e . D o c u m e n t filed b y G o o g l e , Inc.(dle) (Entered: 0311112009)

RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by Ooogle, Inc .. (Jacobson, Jonathan) (Entered: 031l0/2009) ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE ON WRITTEN MOTION, granting 13 Motion for Jonathan S. Kanter to Appear Pro Hac Vice FOR TradeComct.com LLC. (Signed by Judge Sidney H. Stein on 319109) (cd) (Entered: 0311012009)
T r a n s m i s s i o n to A t t o r n e y A d m i s s i o n s C l e r k . T r a n s m i t t e d re: 16 O r d e r on M o t i o n to A p p e a r P r o H a c V i c e , to t h e A t t o r n e y A d m i s s i o n s C l e r k f o r u p d a t i n g o f A t t o r n e y

0311012009

[nfonnatinn. (cd) (Entered: 0311012009) 0311012009 17 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE ON WRITTEN MOTION gran6ng 14 Motion for Charles F Rule to Appear Pro Hac Vice for TradcComct.com LLC. (Signed by Judge Sidney H. Stein on 319109) (cd) (Entered: 0311012009) Transmission to Attorney Admissions Clerk. Transmitted TC: 17 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, to thc Attorney Admissions Clerk for updating o f Attorney Infonnation. (cd) (Entered: 0311012009) CASHIERS OFFICE REMARK on 14 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, 13 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice in the amount ofS50.00, paid on 0212712009, Receipt umber 680046. Od) (Entered: 0311212009) 19 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF SUSAN A. CREIGHTON: granting 18 Motion for Susan A. Creighton to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge Sidney H. Stein on 311312009) Ofe) (Entered: 0311312009) Transmission to Attorney Admissions Clerk. Transmitted re: 19 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, to the Attorney Admissions Clcrk for updating o f Attorney Infonnation. Ofe) (Entered: 0311312009) 20 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Any document demands plaintiff serves on defendant shall be returnable within 10 days; 2. Defendant shall move to dismiss the complaint for improper venue or lack o f jurisdiction based on improper venue on or before March 31,2009; 3. PlaintilT's opposition to the motion is due on or before April 15, 2009; and 4. Defendant's reply to its motion is due on or before April 22, 2009. So Ordered (Signed by Judge Sidney H. Stein on 3117109) Os) (Entered: 0311812009) CASHIERS OFFICE REMARK on 18 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice in the amount ofS25.oo, paid on 0310912009, Receipt Number 680700. Od) (Entered: 0311912009) 21 MOTION to Dismiss B a s e d on Lack o / S u b j e c t Malter Jurisdiction a n d Improper Venue. Document ftled by Google, Inc .. (Jaeobson, Jonathan) (Entered: 03/3112009) MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 2 l MOTION to Dismiss B a s e d on Lack 0/ Subject Matter Jurisdiction a n d Improper Venue .. Document filed by Googlc, Inc .. (Jacobson, Jonathan) (Entered: 0313112009) DECLARATION o f Heather Wilburn in Support Te: 21 MOTION to Dismiss B a s e d on

0311012009

0311212009

0311312009

0311312009

0311712009

0311912009 0313112009 0313112009

n
23

0313112009

https:llecf.nysd.useourts.govlegi-binIDktRpl.pl?635043885728324-L_961_0-1

Lack a / S u b j e c t M at t e r J u r i s d i c t i o n a n d I m p r o p e r Venue .. D o c u m e n t filed by Google, Inc .. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 6. Exhibit B, # J. Exhibit C , # 1. Exhibit D, # ~ Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # I Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # -' I Exhibit K, # l 2 Exhibit L)(Jacobson, Jonathan) (Entered: 03/31/2009) 03/31/2009

24

C E R T I F I C A T E O F S E R V I C E o f D e f e n d a n t G o o g l e Inc.'s N o t i c e o f M o t i o n , M e m o r a n d u m o f Law In Support o f Its M o t i o n to Dismiss Based on Lack o f Subject M a t t e r Jurisdiction and Improper Venue a n d Declaration o f Heather Wilburn in S u p p o r t o f M o t i o n to Dismiss with exhibits served o n Charles F. Rule, Joseph Bial, J o n a t h a n K a n t e r a n d D a n i e l H o w l e y o n M a r c h 31, 2 0 0 9 . S e r v i c e w a s m a d e b y Electronic Mail. Document filed by Google, Inc .. (Jacobson, Jonathan) (Entered: 03/3112009) M E M O R A N D U M OF L A W in Opposition re: 21 M O T I O N to Dismiss B a s e d o n L a c k a / S u b j e c t M at t e r J u r i s d i c t i o n a n d I m p r o p e r Venue .. D o c u m e n t filed by T r a d e C o m e t . C o m LLC. ( A t t a c h m e n t s : # J Certificate o f S e r v i c e ) ( B i a l , J o s e p h ) (Entered: 04/15/2009) D E C L A R A T I O N o f Daniel J. Howley in Opposition re: 21 M O T I O N to Dismiss B a s e d o n L a c k 0/ S u b j e c t M a tter J u r i s d i c t i o n a n d I m p r o p e r Venue .. D o c u m e n t filed by T r a d e C o m e t . C o m LLC. (Attachments: # J Exhibit I, # 2. Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # Q Exhibit 6, # 1 Exhibit 7, # l i Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # l Q Exhibit 10, # I I Exhibit I I , # 12 Exhibit 12)(Howley, Daniel) (Entered: 04115/2009) REPLY M E M O R A N D U M OF LA W in Support re: 21 M O T I O N to Dismiss B a s e d o n L a c k 0/ S u b j e c t Matter Jurisdiction a n d I m p r o p e r Venue .. D o c u m e n t filed by Google, Inc .. (Jacobson, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/2212009) DEC LARAT I O N o f Sara Ciarelli Walsh in Support re: 21 M O T I O N to Dismiss B a s e d o n L a c k a / S u b j e c t M atter J u r i s d i c t i o n a n d I m p r o p e r Venue .. Document filed by Google, Inc .. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # ~ Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Jacobson, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/22/2009) C E R T I F I C A T E OF S E R V I C E o f Reply M e m o r a n d u m o f Law In S u p p o r t O f Defendant Google Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss a n d Declaration O f Sara Ciarelli Walsh In Support O f Defendant's M o t i o n To Dismiss served o n Charles F. Rule, Joseph J. Bial, J o n a t h a n K a n t e r , D a n i e l H o w l e y o n A p r i l 22, 2 0 0 9 . S e r v i c e w a s m a d e b y E l e c t r o n i c mail. Document filed by Google, Inc .. (Jacobson, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/22/2009) M O T I O N to Strike D o c u m e n t No. 2-.8 / Exhibits D, E, F, G a n d H 0/ the D e c l a r a t i o n 0/ S a r a Ciarelli Walsh. D o c u m e n t filed by T r a d e C o m e t . C o m LLC.(Bial, Joseph) (Entered: 04/24/2009) M E M O R A N D U M OF L A W in Support re: 30 M O T I O N to Strike D o c u m e n t No. 2 8 / Exhibits D. E, F, G a n d H a / t h e Declaration a / S a r a Ciarelii Walsh .. Document filed b y T r a d e C o m e t . C o m LLC. ( A t t a c h m e n t s : # 1 C e r t i f i c a t e o f S e r v i c e ) ( B i a l , J o s e p h ) (Entered: 04/24/2009) M E M O R A N D U M OF L A W in Opposition re: 30 M O T I O N to Strike D o c u m e n t No. 2 8 / Exhibits D, E, F. G a n d J-l a / t h e D e c l a r a t i o n a / S a r a Ciarelli Walsh. G o o g l e Inc.'s M E M O R A N D U M O F LA W in Opposition to TradecomeI.com L L C ' s Motion to Strike Exhibits D , E . F , G . a n d H a / t h e Walsh Declaration. D o c u m e n t filed by Google, Inc .. ( J a c o b s o n , J o n a t h a n ) (Entered: 0 4 / 2 7 / 2 0 0 9 ) C E R T I F I C A T E OF SERVICE. Document filed b y Google, Inc .. (Jacobson, Jonathan)

0411 5/2009

25

04/15/2009

26

04/22/2009

27

04/22/2009

28

04/22/2009

29

0412412009

30

04/24/2009

31

04/27/2009

32

04/27/2009

33

https:l/ecf. nysd. useourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt.pI?635043885728324-L_ 9 6 J_0-1

(Entered: 0 4 / 2 7 / 2 0 0 9 ) 04/28/2009

34

R E P L Y M E M O R A N D U M O F L A W in S u p p o r t re: 3 0 M O T I O N to S t r i k e D o c u m e n t No. 2 8 / Exhibits D, E, F, G a n d H o f the Declaration a / S a r a Ciare!li Walsh .. D o c u m e n t filed b y T r a d e C o m e t . C o m L L C . ( A t t a c h m e n t s : # 1 C e r t i f i c a t e o f S e r v i c e ) (Bial, J o s e p h ) (Entered: 0 4 / 2 8 / 2 0 0 9 ) N O T I C E O F C H A N G E O F A D D R E S S b y D a n i e l J o s e p h H o w l e y , J r on b e h a l f o f T r a d c C o m c t . C o m L t C . N e w Address: C a d w a l a d e r W i c k e r s h a m & T a f t L L P , 7 0 0 S i x t h Street, N W . , W a s h i n g t o n , D C , U S A 2 0 0 0 1 , ( 2 0 2 ) 8 6 2 - 2 2 0 0 . ( H o w l e y , D a n i e l ) (Entered: 0 8 / 0 5 / 2 0 0 9 ) N O T I C E O F C H A N G E O F A D D R E S S b y J o s e p h J B i a l on b e h a l f o f T r a d c C o m c t . C o m LLC. N e w Address: C a d w a l a d c r W i c k e r s h a m & Taft, 7 0 0 S i x t h S t r e e t , N. W., W a s h i n g t o n , D C , U S A 2 0 0 0 I, ( 2 0 2 ) 8 6 2 - 2 2 0 0 . (Bial, J o s e p h ) (Entered: 08/05/2009) N O T I C E O F C H A N G E O F A D D R E S S b y C h a r l e s F. Rule on b e h a l f o f T r a d c C o m c t . C o m L t C . N e w A d d r e s s : C a d w a l a d c r W i c k e r s h a m & T a f t , 7 0 0 Sixth S t r e e t , N . W., W a s h i n g t o n , D C , U S A 2 0 0 0 1 , ( 2 0 2 ) 8 6 2 - 2 2 0 0 . ( R u l e , C h a r l e s ) ( E n t e r e d : 08/06/2009) O P I N I O N & O R D E R re: # 9 8 6 2 7 3 0 M O T I O N t o S t r i k e D o c u m e n t No. 28 E x h i b i t s D, E, F , G a n d H o f t h e D e c l a r a t i o n o f S a r a C i a r c l l i W a l s h filed b y T r a d c C o m c t . C o m L t C , 2 1 M O T I O N to D i s m i s s B a s e d o n L a c k o f S u b j e c t M a t t e r J u r i s d i c t i o n a n d I m p r o p e r V e n u e filed b y G o o g l e , Inc. G o o g l e h a s d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t t h e A u g u s t 2 0 0 6 A g r e e m e n t p r o v i d e s the forum s e l e c t i o n c l a u s e at issue in t h i s a c t i o n , t h a t the c l a u s e w a s r e a s o n a b l y c o m m u n i c a t e d to T r a d e C o m e t , that the c l a u s e is m a n d a t o r y , a n d t h a t T r a d e C o m e t ' s a n t i t r u s t c l a i m s a r c s u b j e c t t o it. T r a d e C o m e t h a s n o t s h o w n t h a t e n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e c l a u s e w o u l d b e u n c o n s c i o n a b l e . A c c o r d i n g l y , G o o g l e ' s m o t i o n to d i s m i s s t h e c o m p l a i n t p u r s u a n t t o Federal R u l e o f Civil P r o c e d u r e 12(b)(I) a n d l2(b)(3) is granted. T h e C o u r t a l s o d e n i e s T r a d e C o m e t ' s m o t i o n to s t r i k e E x h i b i t s D t h r o u g h H o f the W a l s h Declaration. S O O R D E R E D . ( S i g n e d by J u d g e S i d n e y H. S t e i n on 3 / 5 / 2 0 1 0 ) ( t v e ) M o d i f i e d o n 3 / 8 / 2 0 1 0 (ajc). ( E n t e r e d : 0 3 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 0 ) C L E R K ' S J U D G M E N T T h a t f o r t h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d in t h e C o u r t ' s O p i n i o n a n d O r d e r d a t e d M a r c h 5, 2 0 1 0 , G o o g l e ' s motion to d i s m i s s the c o m p l a i n t p u r s u a n t to Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 2 ( b ) ( I ) a n d 12(b)(3) is g r a n t e d , a n d T r a d e C o m e t ' s m o t i o n to s t r i k e E x h i b i t s D t h r o u g h H o f the W a l s h D e c l a r a t i o n is d e n i e d . ( S i g n e d by 1. M i c h a e l M c M a h o n , c l e r k o n 3 / 1 2 / 1 0 ) ( A t t a e h m e n t s : # . l n o t i e e o f r i g h t to a p p e a l ) ( m l ) ( E n t e r e d : 0 3 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 0 ) N O T I C E O F A P P E A L from ,19 C l e r k ' s J u d g m e n t , 38 M e m o r a n d u m & O p i n i o n , . D o c u m e n t filed b y T r a d e C o m e t . C o m L L C . F i l i n g fcc $ 4 5 5 . 0 0 , r e c e i p t n u m b e r E 896979. (nd) (Entered: 0 3 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 0 ) T r a n s m i s s i o n o f N o t i c e o f A p p e a l t o the D i s t r i c t J u d g e re: 4 0 N o t i c e o f A p p e a l . ( n d ) (Entered: 0 3 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 0 ) Transmission o f Notice o f A p p e a l and Certified C o p y o f D o c k e t S h e e t t o U S Court o f A p p e a l s rc: 4 0 N o t i c e o f Appeal. (nd) ( E n t e r e d : 0 3 / 1 6 / 2 0 I 0 ) A p p e a l R e c o r d S e n t to U S C A ( E l e c t r o n i c F i l e ) . C e r t i f i e d I n d e x e d r e c o r d o n A p p e a l E l e c t r o n i c F i l e s f o r Q N o t i c e o f A p p e a r a n c e filed b y G o o g l e , I n c . , ~6 N o t i c e o f C h a n g e o f A d d r e s s filed b y T r a d c C o m c t . C o m LLC,.39. C l e r k ' s J u d g m e n t , .1 N o t i c e o f A p p e a r a n c e filed b y G o o g l e , Inc., 31 M e m o r a n d u m o f L a w in S u p p o r t o f M o t i o n , filed b y T r a d c C o m e t . C o m L L C , 11 N o t i c e o f C a s e A s s i g n m e n t I R e a s s i g n m e n t , 17 O r d e r on

08/05/2009

35

08/05/2009

36

08/06/2009

37

03105/2010

38

03/12/2010

39

03/15/20 I 0

40

03/16/2010 03/16/2010 03/16/2010

h t t p s : / / c c f n y s d . u s c o u r t s . g o v / e g i - b i n l D k t R p t . p l ? 6 3 5043 8 8 5 7 2 8 3 2 4 - L _ 9 6 1 _0-1

Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, 9 Notice o f Change o f Address filed by Google, Inc., 27 Reply Memorandum o f Law in Support o f Motion filed by Goog[e, Inc., 15 Rule 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Google, Inc., 18 MOTION for Susan A. Creighton to Appear Pro Hac Vice. filed by Google, Inc., 4 Notice o f Appearance filed by TradcComet.Com LLC, 1 Complaint filed by TradeCome1.Com LLC, 40 Notice o f Appeal filed by TradeComet.Com LLC, 19 O r d e r on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, :21 Notice o f Change o f Address filed by TradeComet.Com LLC, 34 Reply Memorandum o f Law in Support o f Motion, filed by TradeComet.Com LLC, 26 Declaration in Opposition to Motion, filcd b y TradcComet.Com LLC, 25 Memorandum o f Law in Opposition to Motion filed b y TradcComet.Com LLC, 2J. Certificate o f Service Other, filed by Google, Inc., 3 Notice o f Appearance filed by TradeComet.Com LLC, 20 Order, Set DeadlineslHearings" 5 Summons Returned Executed filed by TradcComet.Com LLC, J 4 MOTION for Charles F. Rule to Appear Pro Hac Vice. filed by TradeComet.Com LLC, 32 Memorandum o f L a w in Opposition to Motion, filed by Google, Inc., l~ Memorandum & Opinion", 2_9 Certificate o f Service Other, filed by Google, Inc., 2 Rule 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by TradeComet.Com LLC, 3_0 MOTION to Strikc Document No. 2 8 / Exhibits D, E, F, a n d H o f the Declaration o fSara Ciarelli Walsh. filed by TradeComet.Com LLC, 33 Certificatc o f Service Other filed by Google, Inc., 21 MOTION to Dismiss B a s e d on Lack o fSubject Matter Jurisdiction a n d Improper Venue. filed b y Google, Inc., t3 MOTION for Jonathan S. Kanter to Appear Pro Hac Vice. filed by TradeComet.Com LLC, 2_2. Mcmorandum o f Law in Support o f Motion filed by Google, Inc., lO Noticc o f Appearance filed by Google, Inc., 35 Notice o f Change o f Address filed by TradeComet.Com LLC, 2.3 Declaration in Support o f Motion, filed by Googlc, Inc., 12 Stipulalion and Order, Sct Deadlincs, 8 Notice o f Change o f Address filed by Google, Inc., 28 Declaration in Support o f Motion, filed by Google, Inc., lQ O r d c r on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice were transmitted to the U.S. Court o f Appeals. (nd) (Entered: 0311612010)

e

I I I

I I 03129/2010 12:16:32 I P A C E R Login: lIcw275 I IlClient Code: 1199828.001 I O " ' ' ; P : 3 . [ " k " R ' P O ~ " h C , ; t " ; , , II ,09-ov-01400-SHS I Billable 5 st: 10.40 I
P A C E R Service C e n t e r
T r a n s a c t i o n Receipt

hltps://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binJDktRpt.pl?635043885728324-L_961_0-1

UNITED S T A T E S D I S T R I C T C O U R T SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

.----------------------------------------------------------------)(
T R A D E C O M E T C O M LLC, 09 Civ. 1400 ( S H S ) Plaintiff, OPINION & ORDER

-againstG O O G L E , INC.,

Defendant. -----------------------------------------------------------------x
S I D N E Y H. S T E I N , U.S. D i s t r i c t J u d g e .

The parties to this a c t i o n - T r a d c C o m c t . c o m LLC and Google, l n c . - o w n and operate
c o m p e t i n g internet s e a r c h engines. T r a d e C o m e t p u r c h a s e d a d v e r t i s i n g on G o o g l e ' s w e b s i t e

t h r o u g h G o o g l e ' s A d W o r d s p r o g r a m a n d n o w a l l e g e s t h a t G o o g l e a t t e m p t e d t o r e d u c e t r a f f i c at

TradeComet's own website both b y increasing the cost o f TradeComet's advertising and b y
e n t e r i n g into e x c l u s i v e a g r e e m e n t s with o t h e r w e b s i t e s , all a l l e g e d l y in v i o l a t i o n o f the S h e r m a n A n t i t r u s t A c t . G o o g l e h a s n o w m o v e d to d i s m i s s t h e c o m p l a i n t p u r s u a n t t o F e d e r a l R u l e o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e l 2 ( b ) ( l ) a n d 12(b)(3) for i m p r o p e r v e n u e b a s e d on a forum s e l e c t i o n c l a u s e in the p a r t i e s ' a d v e r t i s i n g contracts. B e c a u s e T r a d e C o m e t ' s c l a i m s fall w i t h i n t h e s c o p e o f the r e l e v a n t f o r u m s e l e c t i o n c l a u s e t h a t r e q u i r e s t h a t t h i s a c t i o n b e b r o u g h t in C a l i f o r n i a , a n d b e c a u s e e n f o r c i n g t h a t c l a u s e w o u l d b e n e i t h e r u n r e a s o n a b l e n o r unjust, G o o g l e ' s m o t i o n to d i s m i s s is granted.

I.

Background
T h e f o l l o w i n g facts a r e t a k e n from t h e c o m p l a i n t ; t h e d e c l a r a t i o n s o f H e a t h e r W i l b u r n ,

Daniel J. H o w l e y , a n d S a r a Ciarelli Walsh; a n d the a t t a c h m e n t s t h e r e t o , a n d a r e p r e s u m e d to be t r u e for p u r p o s e s o f this m o t i o n .

A.

The Advertising Relationship between TradeComet and Google TradeComet operates the website SourceTool.com, which attracts "highlY4valued search

traffic o f businesses seeking to buy o r sell products and service to other businesses," and provides what is commonly referred to as a " 8 2 8 " (for "business to business") directory. (CompI.

'i! 4.) TradeComet alleges that since its start in 2005, its website has experienced

significant growth, in part based on the search traffic and advertising revenue that it generated as a result o f placing advertisements for its website on Google's competing website. (ld.
44.)

'il'il 6, 41-

Dan Savage, the founder o f TradeComet, met with Google representatives in December 2005 and May 2006 to discuss use o f Google's AdWords advertising program to maximize TradeComet's revenue. l TradeComet alleges that following the May 2006 meeting, Google

"drastically" increased the minimum price o f the keywords that SourceTool.eom had purchased through the AdWords program, thus making those keywords effectively unavailable to TradeComet and depriving its w e b s i t e - S o u r e e T o o l . e o m - - { ) f traffic that the use o f those keywords would drive to the SoureeToo1.com website. This in rum caused a drop in the revenue that TradeComet derived from advertisements on its website. (ld.

,j4J 45-48.) Google claims that

it increased the price o f the relevant keywords due to its usc o f an algorithm that adjusts advertising prices to reflect the quality o f the page to which the advertisement linked. (ld. 1111 494 52.)
I

TradcComct contends that Google dominates the market for online search, and that

The U.S. Court o f Appeals for the Second Circuit has described G o o g l c ' s AdWords program as follows: AdWords is G o o g l e ' s program through which advertisers purchase terms (or keywords). When entered as a search term, the keyword triggers the appearance o f the advertiser's ad and link. An advertiser's purchase o f a particular term causes the advertiser's ad and link to be displayed on the u s e r ' s screen whenever a searcher launches a Google search based on the purchased search term. Advertisers pay Google based on the number o f times Internet users ' c l i c k ' on the advertisement, so as to link to the advertiser's website.

Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc., 562 F.3d 123, 125 (2d Cir. 2009); ~-ee also CampI.

~~

31-34.

2

Google's effective exclusion o f SourceTool.com from

its AdWords program starved

SourceTool.eom o f the traffic it needed to grow, in violation o f the Shennan Antitrust Act. (Id.
'i~

3, 21-22, 54-55.) TradeComet also alleges that Google has entered into exclusive agreements with other

popular websites and with rival search engines in a further effort to consolidate online search at Google.com and exclude other search e n g i n e s - s u c h as S o u r e e T o o l . e o m - f r o m the relevant market, also allegedly violating the Shennan Antitrust Act. (ld. B. T h e Relevant F o r u m S e l e c t i o n C l a u s e s Users o f G o o g l e ' s AdWords program must accept a set o f terms and conditions in order to activate an AdWords account and they must subsequently accept any additional terms and conditions that Google later implements i f the user wants to continue using its existing AdWords account. (Dep. o f Heather Wilburn dated April 1 3 , 2 0 0 9 ("Wilburn Dep.") at 13:9-11, 34:2lM 35:6, Ex. B to Dec. o f Sara Ciarelli Walsh dated April 22, 2009 ("Walsh Dec.").) The tenus and conditions that went into effect on April 1 9 , 2 0 0 5 and May 23, 2006 include provisions stating that "[t]he Agreement must be construed as i f both parties jointly wrote it, governed by California law except for its conflicts o f laws principles and adjudicated in Santa Clara County, California." Agreement") (Google Inc. AdWords Program Terms dated April 19, 2005 (the "April 2005
~ f1~

68-74,100-01.)

7, Ex. 2 to Dec. o f Daniel J. Howley dated April 15, 2009 ("Howley Dec.");

Google Inc. AdWords Program T e n n s dated May 23, 2006 (the "May 2006 Agreement") ~ 9, Ex. 3 to Howley Dec.) They also include identical language directing that "Google may modify the [AdWords] Program or these T e n u s at any time without liability and your use o f the Program after notice that Terms have changed indicates acceptance o f the T e n n s . " Agreement ~ 2; May 2006 Agreement ~ 2.) ( A p r i l 2005

3

Effective August 22, 2006, Google issued a revised set o f t e n u s and conditions that contains the same language regarding modifications to the t e n u s along with a broader forum selection clause as follows:

THE AGREEMENT MUST BE CONSTRUED AS IF BOTH PARTIES JOINTLY WROTE IT AND GOVERNED BY CALIFORNIA LAW EXCEPT FOR ITS CONFLICTS OF LAWS PRINCIPLES. ALL CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO Tr·llS AGREEMENT OR THE GOOGLE PROGRAM(S) SHALL BE LITIGATED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE FEDERAL OR STATE COURTS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, USA, AND GOOGLE AND CUSTOMER CONSENT TO PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN THOSE COURTS.
(Googlc Inc. Advcrtising Program T erms datcd August 22, 2006 (the " A u g u s t 2006 Agreement")
~

9, Ex. 1 to Howley Dec. (capitalization in original).) Representatives for TradeComet have

a c c e p t e d t h o s e terms a n d c o n d i t i o n s .

(See Dec. o f Heather Wilburn dated March 30, 2009

("Wilburn

Dec.")~'

6-7; Ex. D-F to Walsh Dec.)

As noted, Google has now moved to dismiss the complainl on the grounds that the August 2006 forum selection clause requires TradeComet to bring its claims in a court located in Santa Clara County, California, not in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District o f N e w York. TradeComet, on the other hand, contends that the forum selection clause contained in the April 2005 and May 2006 A g r e e m e n t s - n o t the August 2006 A g r e e m e n t - g o v e r n s because it was in effect at the time o f G o o g l e ' s alleged violations o f the S h e n n a n Antitrust Act. Because Google is correct that the August 2006 forum selection clause governs and because T r a d e C o m e t ' s claims "relat[e] to . . . the Google Program(s)," G o o g l e ' s motion to dismiss the c o m p l a i n t is g r a n t e d ?

2

TradeComet has moved to strike Exhibits D through H o f the Walsh Declaration submitted in reply b y Google because those exhibits allegedly present new material that Google should have submitted with its opening brief. These exhibits contain s c r e e n s h o t s - i m a g e s that record the visible content displayed on a computer's monitor---on which Google relies to show that TradeComet accepted the August 2006 Agreement for its Google AdWords Accounts. Because these exhibits simply respond to TradeComet's suggestion in its papers in opposition to the motion that it never acccpted the August 2006 Agrecmcnt, the Court will consider these materials. S e e N i v v, /-lilton

4

II.

Standard o f Review There is a split o f authority in the Second Circuit regarding the appropriate procedural

mechanism by which to enforce a forum selection clause. The proper vehicle is a motion to dismiss the complaint for either ( l ) lack o f subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule o f Civil Procedure 12(b)(I), s e e A V e N e d e r l a n d B. V. v. A t r i u m Inv. Partnership, 740 F.2d 148, 152 (2d Cif. 1984); (2) improper venue pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3), s e e Phillips v. A u d i o A c t i v e Ltd., 494 F.3d 378, 382 (2d Cir. 2007); or (3) failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), s e e
Evolution O n l i n e Sys., Inc. v. Koninklijke P I T N e d e r l a n d N.V., 145 F.3d 505, 508 n.6 (2d Cir. 1998). B u t s e e N e w Moon S h i p p i n g Co. v. M A N B & W D i e s e l A G , 121 F.3d 24, 29 (2d CiT.

1997) ("[T]here is no existing mechanism with which forum selection enforcement is a perfect
fit."). Hedging its bet, Google brings its motion pursuant to both Rule 12(b){l) and 12(b)(3).3

See Cfirstclass Corp. v. Silverj e t PLC, 560 F. Supp. 2d 324, 327 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).

The burden on a plaintiff opposing enforcement o f a forum selection clause is similar to that "imposed on a plaintiff to prove that the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over his suit or personal jurisdiction over the defendant." N e w Moon Shipping, 121 F.3d at 29. Thus, courts apply the standard o f review applicable to motions to dismiss for lack o f jurisdiction, taking the facts in the light most favorable to the party resisting enforcement o f the forum selection clause. S e e id.

Hotels Corp., - - F. Supp. 2d ---, 2008 WL 4849334, a t · S n.4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 200S); s e e also Ruggiero v. Warner-Lambert Co., 424 F.3d 249, 252 (2d Cif. 2005). J In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to either Federal Rule o f Civil Procedure 12(b)(I) or 12(b)(3), a court may consider evidentiary matters outside the pleadings, "by affidavit or othenvise," regarding the existence o f jurisdiction. Kamen v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 791 F.2d 1006, 1011 (2d Cir. 1986); s e e also State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition v. Rowland, 494 f .3d 71, 77 n.4 (2d Cir. 2007); Altvater Gessler-J.A. Baczewski Intern. (USA) Inc. v. Sobieski Destylarnia S.A., 572 F.3d 86, 89 (2d Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the Court will consider the several declarations submitted by the parties, along with their a t t a c h m e n t s - i n c l u d i n g the three agreements between TradeComet and Google--because they are germane to the question o f the C o u n ' s subject matter jurisdiction.

5

III.

Analysis

The parties contest both which forum selection clause applies to this action and whether either forum selection clause requires dismissal or transfer.
A.

Which Forum Selection Clause Applies The parties contest which forum selection c l a u s e - i . e . , that found in the April 2005 and

May 2006 Agreements or the clause found in the August 2006 A g r e e m e n t - g o v e r n s this motion. TradeComet contends that, because the conduct alleged in the complaint began in mid·2006, when the narrower forum selection clause found in the April 2005 and May 2006 Agreements was in effect, that clause governs. Google responds by pointing to the language in those earlier agreements that "Google may modify the [AdWords] Program or these Tenus at any time without liability and your use o f the Program after notice that Tenns have changed indicates acceptance o f the Tenus" to argue that the forum sclection clause in the August 2006 Agreement replaced and superseded those found in the earlier agreements. (April 2005 Agreement'l 2; May 2006 Agreement ~ 2.) Google also notes that the August 2006 Agreement specifically states that it "supersedes and replaces any other agreement, terms and conditions applicable to the subject matter hercof." (August 2006 Agreement ~ 9.) The Court applies California state law to resolve this question, as all agreements between the parties include choice o f law provisions requiring the application o f California law. Under Califomia state law, the fundamental goal o f contract interpretation is to give effect to the mutual intent o f the parties as it existed at the time o f contracting. Cal. Civ. Code §
1636; City o f Atascadero v. Merrili Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 68 Cal. App. 4th 445,

474 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998). When a contract is reduced to writing, this intent "is to be ascertained

6

from the writing alone, i f possible." Cal. Civ. Code § 1639; s e e also Brinton v. B a n k e r s Pension
Servs., Inc., 76 Cal. App. 4th 550, 559 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999).

Furthermore, "the fact that one party reserves the implied power to terminate or modify a unilateral contract is not fatal to its enforcement, i f the exercise o f the p o w e r is subject to limitations, such as fairness and reasonable notice." A s m u s v. Pacific Be!!, 23 Cal. 4th I, 16
(2000); s e e also MySpace. Inc. v. Globe.com, Inc., No. 06 Civ. 3391, 2007 WL 1686966, at

* I0

(C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2007). T h e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f the a g r e e m e n t s i n d i c a t e s t h a t T r a d e C o m c t a c c e p t e d t h e modifications to the forum selection clause found in the August 2006 Agreement when it accepted that agreement. S e e Stute v. Burinda, 123 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 11, 16 (Cal. App. O e p ' t Super. Ct. 1981). Accordingly, the Court assesses whether the forum selection clause found in the August 2006 Agreement requires the dismissal o f the complaint o r transfer o f this action. B. D i s m i s s a l B a s e d o n a Forum S e l e c t i o n C l a u s e " T h e scope o f the forum selection clause is a contractual question that requires the courts to interpret the clause and, where ambiguous, to consider the intent o f the parties." N e w Moon
Shipping, 121 F.3d a t 33. " P l a i n t i f f s choice o f forum in bringing his suit in federal court in New

York will not be disregarded unless the contract evinces agreement by the parties that his claims cannot be heard there." PhilJips, 494 F.3d at 387. Thus, the court must "examine the substance o f [a p l a i n t i f f s ] claims as they relate to the precise language" o f the specific clause at issue. fd.
at 389.

T o obtain dismissal based on a forum selection clause, the party seeking enforcement o f the clause must demonstrate t h a t ( I ) the clause was reasonably communicated to the party resisting enforcement, (2) the clause was mandatory and not merely permissive, and (3) the

7

elaims and parties involved in the suit are subject to thc forum selection clause. fd. at 383-84. After the party seeking enforcement has established these three conditions, the burden shifts to the party resisting enforcement to rebut the presumption o f enforceability by "making a sufficiently strong showing that 'enforcement would be unreasonable or unjust, or that the clause was invalid for such reasons as fraud or overreaching.'" ld. (quoting MIS B r e m e n v. Zapata OffShore Co., 407 U.S. I, 15 (1972)).

The U.S. Court o f Appeals for the Second Circuit has d i s c u s s e d - b u t not d e c i d e d - w h a t law lo apply to a forum selection clause when the contract also contains a choice o f law provision. S e e Phillips, 494 F.3d at 384. In the Phillips decision, the court was clear that the first and fourth steps o f the a n a l y s i s - w h e t h e r the clause was communicated to the non-moving party and whether enforcement would be r e a s o n a b l e - a r e procedural in nature and should be analyzed under federal law. See id.; s e e also D i e s e l Props s.r.L. v. Greys/one Business Credit [ [
L L C , No. 07 Civ. 9580, 2008 WL 4833001, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. N o v . 5, 2008). However, it was

troubled by the application o f federal law to the second and third prongs o f the inquiry, whieh concern the meaning and scope o f the forum selection clause, noting that it could not "understand why the interpretation o f a forum selection clause should be singled out for application o f any law other than that chosen to govern the interpretation o f the contract as a whole." Phillips, 494 F.3d at 385-86 (citing Yovuz v. 6 / MM, Ltd., 465 F.3d 418 (10th Cif. 2006)). Because the parties here rely on both federal and California state law in their

submissions, and because application o f either body o f law to the second and third Phillips prongs results in the same outcome, the Court need not decide that issuc at this time.

8

I.

The forum selection clause was reasonably communicated to p l a i n t i f f

The Second Circuit "regularly cnforce[s]" forum selection clauses as long as "the existence o f the clause was reasonably communicated to the parties." D.H. Blair & Co. v.
Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 103 (2d Cir. 2006). The agreements at issue here are "clickwrap

arrangements" in which users o f Ooogle's AdWords program arc required to agree to the proffered tenns in order to use the program. 4 See Register. com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393, 429 (2d Cir. 2004); see also Wilburn Dcp. at 13:9-11,34:21-35:6. District courts in this Circuit havc found that clickwrap agreements that require a user to accept the agreement before proceeding arc "reasonably communicated" to the user for purposes o f this analysis. See. e.g., Person v. Google Inc., 456 F. Supp. 2d 488,
496~97

(S.D.N.Y. 2006)

(finding that Ooogle's AdWords agreement provided the plaintiff with sufficient notice o f the tenns o f the user agreement to enforce its forum selection clause); Universal Grading Service v.
eBay. Inc., No. 08 Civ. 3557, 2009 WL 2029796, at ' I I (E.D.N.Y. June 10, 2009); Novak v. Tucows, Inc., No. 06 Civ. 1909,2007 WL 922306, at ' 7 - 9 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2007).

Ooogle bears the burden o f demonstrating that it reasonably communicated the forum selection provision to TradeComet, Phillips, 494 F.3d at 383-84, and the Court must consider the facts in the light most favorable to TradeComet as the party resisting enforcement o f the forum selection clause, New Moon Shipping, 121 F.3d at 29. Oooglc oITers testimony and screenshots

· A "cliekwrap" license is one that presents the potential licensee (Le., the end-user) with a message on his or her computer screen, requiring that the user manifest his or her assent to the t c m s o f the license agreement b y cI icking on an icon. Essentially, under a cliekwrap arrangement, potential licensees are presentcd with the proposed license t e n n s and forced to expressly and unambiguously manifest either assent or rejection prior to being given access to the product.

Regisler.com. Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393, 429 (2d CiT. 2004) (quotation and citation omitted); s e e also Feldman v. Goog/e. Inc., 513 F. Supp. 2d 229, 236 ( E D . Pa. 2007) (describing the clickwrap agreement containing the t e n n s and conditions o f Go o g l e ' s AdWords program).

9

showing the status o f TradeComet's AdWords accounts to support its contention that TradeComet accepted the August 2006 Agreement and that it had to click through the text o f that agreement to do so. (See, e.g., Wilburn Dcp. at 13:9-11, 34:21-35:6; Wilburn Dec. D-F to Walsh Dec.)
~~

6-7; Ex.

TradeComet neither denies that its representatives agreed to the user

agreement that contained the forum selection clause nor offers any evidence to the contrary. Thus, TradeComet has not overcome Google's prima facie showing that representatives o f TradeComet accepted the forum selection clause at issue in this action.
2. T h e f o r u m selection clause is mandatory.

The rclevant forum selection clause requires that claims "shall be litigated exclusively in the federal or state courts o f Santa Clara County, California." (August 2006 Agreement ~ 9.) "A forum selection clause is viewed as mandatory when it confers exclusive jurisdiction on the designated forum o r incorporates obligatory venue language." Phillips, 494 F.3d at 386; see also
Olinick v. BMG Entertainment, 138 Cal. App. 4th 1286, 1294 (2006) ("The clause in question

contains express language o f exclusivity o f jurisdiction, specifying a mandatory location for litigation. This constimtes a mandatory forum selection clause." (citation omitted)). Here, the forum selection clause clearly contains compulsory language specifying venue, which is sufficient to make the clause mandatory for purposes o f this analysis.
3. Plaintiff's claims are subject to t h e f a r u m selection clause.

TradeComet contends that its antitrust claims do not fall within the scope o f the forum selection clause, whereas Google argues that the claims stem from Google's pricing and administration o f its AdWords program, and thus fall within the scope o f the Agreement. The August 2006 Agreement provides that "[a]11 claims arising out o f or relating to this agreement o r the Google Program(s)" shall be litigated in Santa Clara County, California. (August 2006

10

Agreement ~ 9.) The Court need not detennine whether TradeComet's antitrust claims arise out o f or relate to the agreement because they clearly arise out o f and rclate to Google's AdWords program. The Second Circuit has held consistently that forum selection clauses are to be interpreted broadly and are not restricted to pure breaches o f the contracts containing the clauses. See, e.g., Roby v. Corp. a / L l o y d ' s , 996 F.2d 1353, 1361 (2d CiT. 1993) (finding that a forum sclection clause applicable to controversies arising "in connection with" a set o f contracts detailing the rights and duties o f investors and marketers encompassed investors' securities and RlCO claims); Hense v. Interstate Battery Sys. o j Am., Inc., 683 F.2d 718, 720-21 (2d Cir. 1982) (finding that a forum sclection clause applicable to controversies "arising directly or indirectly" from a franchise agreement encompassed the franchisee's antitrust suit against franchisor); s e e
also Smith, Valentino & Smith, Inc. v. Superior Court o j Los A n g e l e s County, 17 Cal. 3d 491,

495 (1976).

Nonetheless, this expansive interpretation is not without limits, as the Second

Circuit articulated in Phil/ips. In Phil/ips, the court found that a p l a i n t i f f s claim for breach o f copyright did not "arise out o f ' his licensing agreement with the defendant because the rights he sought to enforce did not originate from the recording contract. Phi!!ips, 494 F.3d at 390. In reaching this conclusion, the Second Circuit focused on the specific language o f the forum selection clause, which directed that "any legal proceedings that may arise out o r [this agreement] are to be brought in England."
Id. at 382. The court found the meaning o f "arise out o f ' to be narrower than "all claims that

have some possible relationship with the contract, including claims that may only 'relate to,' be 'associated with,' o r 'arise in connection with' the contract," particularly in light o f the fact that the parties to the agreement could have used such broader tenns i f they so chose. Id. at 389.

11

Applying this logic, the court found that, because t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s rights at issue did not originate from the recording contract, his effort to enforce those rights d i d not "arise o u t o f ' the contract. Id. Both the language o f the forum selection clause found in the A u g u s t 2 0 0 6 A g r e e m e n t and the factual allegations o f the complaint distinguish this action from Phillips. A s notcd above, the a g r e e m e n t here requires that "[a]11 claims arising o u t o f or relating to this a g r e e m e n t or the Googlc Program(s)" shall b e litigated in Santa Clara County, California. (August 2006

A g r e e m e n t ~ 9.) T h u s , t h e c l a u s e a t i s s u e h e r e s p e c i f i c a l l y e m p l o y s o n e o f t h e b r o a d e r t e n u s t h a t the Phillips court n o t e d - i . e . , "all claims . . . that . . . ' r e l a t e t o ' ' ' - i n contrast to the narrower "aris[ing] out o f ' provision at issue in that case. See Phillips, 4 9 4 F.3d at 389. O f even greater significance, this forum selection clause docs not limit its reach merely to claims that rclate to the agreement, b u t rather e n c o m p a s s e s claims that relate to " t h e G o o g l e Program(s)," which it defines as " G o o g l e ' s advertising Program(s)." (August 2 0 0 6 A g r e e m e n t
~

9, preamble.) Thus, i f

T r a d e C o m e t ' s antitrust claims "arise o u t o f ' or " r e l a t e to" either the A u g u s t 2 0 0 6 A g r e e m e n t o r G o o g l e ' s advertising programs, they are subject to the forum selection clause. T r a d e C o m e t sets forth three counts in its complaint. B y t h e i r plain language, each claim "relat[es] to" G o o g l e ' s advertising programs. See generally Universal Grading Servo v. eBay.

Inc., No. 08 Civ. 3557, 2009 WL 2029796, at *11 (E.D.N.Y. June 1 0 , 2 0 0 9 ) ( P l a i n t i f f s ' antitrust
claims alleging conspiracy to restrain trade arise o u t o f e B a y ' s services a n d thus fall within the forum selection clause.); Freedman v. Am. Online, Inc., 294 F. Supp. 2d 238, 2 4 1 · 4 2 (D. Conn.

2003); see alsa Bradl'ky v. Match.com L L e , No. 09 Civ. 5328, 2009 WL 3490277 (S.D.N.Y.
2009) (finding that the p l a i n t i f f s ' claims regarding website u s e r s ' inability to c o m m u n i c a t e via

12

email on the Match website are subject to a forum selection clause governing "any dispute arising out o f the Website and/or the Service"). First, TradeComet alleges that Google has violated Section 2 o f the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.c. § 2, by excluding TradeComet from the market for online search in order to protect Google's own monopoly. (Compl. 'iI'illOS-08.) While Count One does not identify the specific behavior that Google engaged in to maintain its purported monopoly and exclude SourceTool.com from the online search market, this count incorporates previous allegations, including those regarding Google's manipulation o f the AdWords pricing formula to prevent SourceTool.com from advertising on Google's website. Thus, the facts alleged in support o f Count One "relat[e] to" Google's advertising programs. Second, TradeComet contends that Google has attempted to monopolize the online search market by increasing barriers to entry through the use o f preferential agreements and manipulation o f its advertising program to starve competitors such as SourceTool.com o f search traffic, also in violation o f Section 2 o f the Sherman Antitrust Act. (ld. 'ii'illlO-14.) Count Two specifically alleges that Google has attempted to monopolize the online search market by, inter
alia, using the pricing metrics within the AdWords program to prevent SourceTool.com from

obtaining search traffic. advertising programs.

Again, this allegation "relat[es] 10" Google's administration o f its

Finally, TradeComct alleges that Google has entered into unreasonable agreements that restrain trade in violation o f Section I o f the Sherman Antitrust Act, IS U . S . c . § J, by partnering with Business.com.
(ld.

'iI'iI 116-20.) Count Three alleges that Google's agreement with

Business.com improperly relaxes requirements that it imposes on SourceToo1.com and other competitors, thereby both providing search traffic to Business.com that it denies to

13

SourceTool.com and effectively selling advertisements for Business.com's own search queries. While TradeComet again does not specify the requirements for which Google gives Business.com preferential treatment, the only interaction that it has alleged between TradeComet and G o o g l e - a n d thus the only requirements imposed on TradeComet that Google could relax for B u s i n e s s . c o m - s t e m s from the AdWords program, and so this count, too, "relat[es] to" O o o g l e ' s advertising program. Application o f California state law does not dictate a different outcome. State "courts have placed a substantial burden on a plaintiff seeking to defeat [a forum selection] clause, requiring it to demonstrate enforcement o f the clause would be unreasonable under the circumstances o f the case. That is, that the forum selected would be unavailable or unable to accomplish substantial justice." CQL Original Prods., Inc. v. N a t ' l Hockey League P l a y e r s '

Assn., 39 Cal. App. 4th 1347, 1354 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (citations omitted).

Courts in

C a l i f o r n i a - a s do those in the Second C i r c u i t - t u m first to the objective intent o f a written agreement, as evidenced by its plain language. See Titan Group, Inc. v. Sonoma Valley County

Sanitation Dist., 164 Cal. App. 3d 1 1 2 2 , 1 1 2 7 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985).
Furthermore, in considering whether a p l a i n t i f f s claims arc subject to a choice o f law provision, the California Supreme Court has determined that a clause that "provides that a specified body o f law ' g o v e r n s ' the ' a g r e e m e n t ' between the parties, encompasses all causes o f action arising from or related to that agreement." Nedlloyd Lines B. V. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 4th 459, 470 (1992). In reaching this conclusion, the court was skeptical that "any rational businessperson . . . would intend that the laws o f multiple jurisdictions would apply to a single controversy having its origin in a single, contract-based relationship." Id. at 469. It wrote that i f such a result were desired, the parties should "negotiate and obtain the assent o f their fellow

14

parties to explicit contract language specifying what jurisdiction's law applies to what issues."
[d. at 470. This logic parallels that o f the Second Circuit in Phillips and applies here, as the

parties agreed to litigate all claims relating to their agreement or to Google's advertising program in Santa Clara County. On its face, such an encompassing forum selection clause demonstrates the parties' objective intent to litigate claims such as those brought by TradeComet in California, rather than in New York.
4.

E n f o r c e m e n t o f the f o r u m s e l e c t i o n c l a u s e i s n e i t h e r u n r e a s o n a h l e n o r unjust.

TradeComet contends that the forum selection clause is unconscionable b e c a u s e - i t claims--Google enforces it selectively, it is found within a contract o f adhesion, and it would force TradeComet to litigate its claims in Google's "backyard." As an initial matter, TradeComet bears the burden o f showing that the forum selection clause is unreasonable or unjust. See Phillips, 494 F.3d at 383-84. However, TradcComet offers neither evidence to support its allegation o f selective prosecutionS nor legal authority indicating that such b e h a v i o r - i f t r u e - w o u l d make a forum selection clause unconscionable and thus unenforceable. Additionally, the fact that the August 2006 Agreement m a y o r may not be a contract o f adhesion does not invalidate its forum selection provision. See Brodsky, 2009 WL 3490277, at *7-8 ("[A] forum selection clause is not unenforceable even i f it appears in a c o n t r a c t o f a d h e s i o n , including s o - c a l l e d ' c l i c k w r a p ' c o n t r a c t s . . . . " ( c i t i n g C a r n i v a l C n d s e
Lines, Inc, v, Shute, 499 U,S. 585, 593-95 (1991 ))),

Finally, although litigating these claims in California rather than New York likely will be more burdensome for TradeComet, which has its principal place o f business in New York, there is no suggestion that it would be so difficult as to deprive TradeComet o f a fair opportunity to

S

TradeComet cites to cases that Googlc has litigated outside o f Santa Clara County, California but does not demonstrate that those actions fell within the scope o f a forum selection clause similar 10 the one at issue here.

15

litigate its claims. See MIS Bremen, 407 U.S. at 18 ("[I]t should b e incumbent o n the party seeking to escape his contract to show that trial in the contractual forum will be so gravely difficult and inconvenient that he will for all practical purposes be deprived o f his d a y in court."); see also Novak v. Overture Servs., Inc., 309 F. Supp. 2d at 452 (rejecting the contention that a Google forum selection clause encompassing " a n y claims o r causes o f action arising out o f or relating to your use o f this service" was unconscionable); Brodsky, 2009 W L 3490277, at *4. IV.

CODclusioD
Google has demonstrated that the August 2006 Agreement provides the forum selection

clause at issue in this action, that the clause w a s reasonably communicated to TradeComet, that the clause is mandatory, and that T r a d e C o m e t ' s antitrust claims are subject to it. TradeComet has not shown that enforcement o f the clause would be unconscionable. Accordingly, G o o g l e ' s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule o f Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 1 2 ( b ) ( 3 ) is g r a n t e d . T h e C o u r t a l s o d e n i e s T r a d e C o m e t ' s m o t i o n t o s t r i k e E x h i b i t s D t h r o u g h H o f the W a l s h D e c l a r a t i o n . Dated: N e w York, N e w York March 5, 2010

Sidney

. Stein, V . S . D ' ) .

16

UNITED S T A T E S D I S T R I C T C O U R T SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
. . . . . . . . . . . · · . . . . . . . · · · · . . . . . . · · · · . . . . . . . . · · . . . . . . . . · . . . . . . .) (

ELECTRONICALLY FILED!

~~l~~;~::~

I
I
__ .:Jd.!::/Iv

DOC #
DATE r l : .

T R A D E C O M E T . C O M LLC,

Plaintiff,
.against.
GOOGLE, INC.,
_

09 C I V I L 1400 (SHS) JUDGMENT

---_._._ .. _-_

Defendant.

_.. _ ) (

..

Google having m o v e d to dismiss t h e complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 2 ( b ) ( l ) and 12(b)(3), and the matter having come before the Honorable Sidney H. Stein, United States District JUdge, and t h e Court, on March 5, 2010, h a v i n g rendered its Opinion and O r d e r granting G o o g l e ' s

motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(3), and denying
T r a d e C o m