Bradley v. Google, Inc. et al

Filing 23

Bradley v. Google, Inc. et al

Doc. 23

Case 3:06-cv-05289-WHA

Document 23

Filed 12/07/2006

Page 1 of 4

1 KEKER& VANNEST, LLP ASHOK RAANI - #200020
2 ANDREW N. SHEN - #232499 710 Sansome Street
3 San Francisco, CA 94111-1704

Telephone: [phone]
4 Facsimile: [phone]
5 Attorneys for Defendants

GOOGLE, INC., GOOGLE ADSENSE
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10
11

12 THERESA B.BRADLEY, Psy.D./JD,
13

Case No. C-06-05289- WHA

Plaintiff,
v.

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED

14

COMPLAINT
SENSE,
Date: Time: Dept: Judge:
December 21, 2006
8:00 a.m.

15 GOOGLE, INC., GOOGLE AD

16 Defendants.
17
18

Courtroom 9

The Hon. WiliamH. Alsup

Date Compo Filed: August 28, 2006

Trial Date: TBD
19

20
21

22
23

24
25

26 27 28
1

385829.01

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. C-06-05289-WH

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:06-cv-05289-WHA

Document 23

Filed 12/07/2006

Page 2 of 4

1 INTRODUCTION
2 Dr. Bradley's opposition does not dispute a single argument advanced in Google's

3 opening presentation. Instead, Dr. Bradley tries to offer new facts-that she allegedly would not

4 have violated her agreement with Google AdSense had she seen the materials submitted with
5 Google's motion, and that Google and its counsel concocted those documents to disadvantage

6 her case. See, e.g., Plaintiffs Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss at irir 3-8. Setting
7 aside the supermarket-tabloid nature of her accusations, even if

true, the new facts do not save

8 her causes of action from their legal defects. If anything, Dr. Bradley's new assertions further

9 undermine her case, because she has admitted that she breached her agreement with Google by

10 clicking on advertisements shown on her website.
11 Dr. Bradley also has not disputed Google's description of

her repeated, nationwide filing

12 of

what amounts to vexatious litigation. Google respectfully urges this Court to take Judge
jurisdiction, Bradley v. Yahoo, Inc., and

13 Whyte's example in Dr. Bradley's other frolic in this

14 dismiss the instant case.

15 ARGUMENT
16 A.
17
18

Dr. Bradley offers no reason to deny Google's motion to dismiss.
Defendants' motion to dismiss provided the Cour with a variety of legal arguments

highlighting the insuffciencies of plaintiff s claims. Even the most charitable review of
plaintiff s response demonstrates that she has not responded to any of those arguments.

19

20
21

Instead, Dr. Bradley chooses to offer new factual assertions. Notably, she does not so
much as mention the core factual allegations found in her amended complaint, that she was duped by allegedly false advertising, that Google entered her Gmail account and deleted email in
retaliation for her having fied this case, or even that she was unable to access the websites of

22
23

her

24
25

supposed "competitors" without clicking on their advertisements. Dr. Bradley has seemingly
abandoned her amended complaint altogether.
The thrst of

26 27
28

Dr. Bradley's opposition is that defendants have purosefully hidden the

Google AdSense Online Standard Terms and Conditions, see Defendants' Request for Judicial

Notice ("RJ"), Exh. A, until confronted with her complaint. But in its consideration of a Rule
2

385829.01

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. C-06-05289-WH

Case 3:06-cv-05289-WHA

Document 23

Filed 12/07/2006

Page 3 of 4

1 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, "conclusory allegations and unwaranted inferences are insufficient
2 to defeat a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim." County of

Santa Clara v. Astra u.s.,

3 Inc., 428 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1032 (N.D. CaL. 2006) (Alsup, J.) (quotations omitted). Dr. Bradley

4 does not explain what exactly she did see when she agreed to the AdSense Terms and
5 Conditions, .nor does she explain exactly what provisions from the version Google submitted
6 differed from what she had seen. Thus, the Court should reject Dr. Bradley's conclusory factual

7 allegations.

8 B.

Plaintiff has not denied her history of vexatious litigation.
has fied meritless cases across

9 As described in defendants' motion to dismiss, plaintiff

10 the country, harassing a multitude of private individuals, governental entities, and businesses.
11 Plaintiff

has not disputed defendants' description. Nor could she. Indeed, her other venture into

12 this federal district recently ended in dismissal-on November 22,2006, Judge Whyte dismissed
13 plaintiffs case against Yahoo, Bradley v. Yahoo, Inc., No. 06-04662, for failure to pay her filing
14 fee and summarily entered

judgment for defendant, after having granted Yahoo's motion to

15 dismiss Dr. Bradley's complaint a few weeks earlier. Thus, on yet another instance, plaintiffs

16 abusive litigation efforts has wasted the valuable time and resources of a federal district court.
17 Defendants again urge the Court, if it grants the instant motion to dismiss, to refuse to grant

18 leave to amend - an option well within its discretion. See Grimes v. Sprint PCS, 2001 WL

20 CONCLUSION
21 For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant Defendants' motion to dismiss
22 amended complaint without leave to amend.
23 Dated: December 7,2006

19 35036 *2 (N.D. CaL. Jan. 2, 2001).

KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP

24
25
By: Isl Ashok Ramani

26 27
28
3
385829.01
REPLY IN SUPPORT

ASHOK RAMANI Attorneys for Defendants
GOOGLE, INC., GOOGLE AD

SENSE

OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. C-06-05289-WH

Case 3:06-cv-05289-WHA

Document 23

Filed 12/07/2006

Page 4 of 4

1

PROOF OF SERVICE

2
3

4
5

I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of Californa in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the following service was made. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action. My business address is Keker & Van Nest, LLP, 710 Sansome Street, San Francisco, California 94111.
On December 7, 2006, I served the following document:
Reply in Support of

6
7
8

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint

9
10
11

by regular UNITED STATES MAIL by placing a true and correct copy in a sealed envelope Keker & Van Nest, LLP for addressed as shown below. I am readily familiar with the practice of collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. According to that practice, items are deposited with the United States Postal Service at San Francisco, California on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am aware that, on motion of the pary served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or the postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing stated in this affidavit; and
by EMAIL via PDF, by transmitting a true and correct copy scanned into an electronic file in Adobe "pdf' format to the email address below.
Theresa B. Bradley 4500 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 309 Washington, DC 20008 Email: bravacorp(lyahoo.com

12
13

14
15

16 17
18

Executed on December 7, 2006, at San Francisco, Californa.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true
and correct.

19

0''. ri t¡( .~~ ' l; \On CA-

W/J l \AI 'ìjc

20
21

Robert W. Thomas

22
23

24
25 26 27
28