Luxpro Corporation v. Apple, Inc.
Filing
200
ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White granting in part and denying in part 175 Motion to Dismiss. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
LUXPRO CORPORATION, a Taiwanese
corporation
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
No. C 10-03058 JSW
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS THE THIRD AMENDED
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff,
v.
13
APPLE INC. f/k/a Apple Computer, Inc.,
14
Defendant.
/
15
16
INTRODUCTION
17
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the Motion to Dismiss
18
Plaintiff Luxpro Corporation’s (“Luxpro”) Third Amended Complaint, filed by Defendant
19
Apple Inc. (“Apple”). Having considered the parties’ papers, the relevant legal authority, the
20
record in this case, and having had the benefit of oral argument, the Court HEREBY GRANTS
21
IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Apple’s motion to dismiss.
22
BACKGROUND
23
On March 24, 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in part Apple’s motion to
24
dismiss Luxpro’s Second Amended Complaint, and it granted Luxpro a final opportunity to
25
amend its claims to remedy the defects identified by the Court. (See Docket No. 166 (“March
26
24 Order”).) In the March 24 Order, the Court set forth the facts underlying this dispute, and it
27
shall not repeat them herein, except as necessary to the analysis.
28
1
Apple now moves to dismiss Luxpro’s Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) on the basis
2
that Luxpro has not cured the defects previously identified by the Court and on the basis that
3
Luxpro fails to state a claim for relief. Apple also moves to dismiss Luxpro’s claim for
4
violations of California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. on the basis that
5
Luxpro is not entitled to restitution or injunctive relief.
6
ANALYSIS
7
A.
8
9
Luxpro’s Request for Reconsideration is Denied.
In its opposition to Apple’s motion, Luxpro asks the Court to revisit its ruling that the
Noerr-Pennington doctrine protects some, but not all, of Apple’s conduct. (See March 24 Order
at 5:14-10:9.) Luxpro did not file a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, and
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
therefore its request is procedurally improper. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a).
12
Luxpro argues that the Court’s ruling was “clearly erroneous” and that its ruling was
13
“manifestly unjust.” (Opp. Br. at 7 (citing School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,
14
1263 (9th Cir. 1993)). Under Local Rule 7-9(b), a party may seek leave to reconsider a
15
previous ruling by showing, inter alia, that the Court manifestly failed “to consider material
16
facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory
17
order.” However, “[n]o motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration may repeat any
18
oral or written argument,” previously raised by the party who seeks reconsideration. N.D. Civ.
19
L.R. 7-9(c). The Court has considered Luxpro’s arguments in support of its request to revisit
20
this issue. Luxpro repeats arguments previously presented to, considered by, and rejected by the
21
Court.
22
Accordingly, Luxpro’s request also is without substantive merit, and the Court DENIES
23
the request.
24
B.
The Court Grants, in Part, and Denies, in Part Apple’s Motion to Dismiss.
25
1.
26
A motion to dismiss is proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) where the
Applicable Legal Standard.
27
pleadings fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The complaint is construed in
28
the light most favorable to the non-moving party and all material allegations in the complaint
2
1
are taken to be true. Sanders v. Kennedy, 794 F.2d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 1986). However, even
2
under the liberal pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), “a plaintiff’s
3
obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and
4
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell
5
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265,
6
286 (1986)).
7
Pursuant to Twombly, a plaintiff must not merely allege conduct that is conceivable but
570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
10
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
11
For the Northern District of California
must instead allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at
9
United States District Court
8
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, __ U.S. __, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
12
“The plausibility standard is not akin to a probability requirement, but it asks for more than a
13
sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. . . . When a complaint pleads facts that
14
are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility
15
and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557) (internal
16
quotation marks omitted). If the allegations are insufficient to state a claim, a court should
17
grant leave to amend, unless amendment would be futile. See, e.g., Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc.,
18
912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990); Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv., Inc.,
19
911 F.2d 242, 246-47 (9th Cir. 1990)
20
2.
21
To state a claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, a
Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage.
22
plaintiff must show: (1) an economic relationship between the plaintiff and some third party,
23
with the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of
24
the relationship; (3) intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the
25
relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; and (5) economic harm to the plaintiff,
26
which is proximately caused by the acts of the defendant. Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed
27
Martin Corp., 29 Cal. 4th 1134, 1153 (2003).
28
3
1
In its March 24 Order, the Court found that Luxpro had not stated a claim for intentional
2
interference with prospective economic advantage with respect to twenty specific entities, on
3
the basis that Luxpro: (1) failed to allege facts to show that Apple engaged in any independently
4
wrongful conduct; or (2) that Apple’s alleged interference actually disrupted the relationships.1
5
(March 24 Order at 13:1-14:8.)
6
In its TAC, Luxpro alleges that, as to these entities, Apple allegedly disparaged
7
Luxpro’s products and threatened that if these entities did business with Luxpro, Apple would
8
not permit them to purchase Apple products. It further alleges that, thereafter, these entities
9
stopped doing business with Luxpro. (See, e.g., TAC ¶¶ 53, 55-59, 66-68.) Luxpro also alleges
that “purchasing agents” from Tounsen and Fatech, two companies with whom Luxpro did
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
business, “confirmed to Luxpro that Apple had approached all of Luxpro’s distributors and
12
retailers, including those listed in paragraphs 30-34, 48, and 52-54, with a threatened boycott (if
13
these distributors and retailers sold Luxpro products, then they could not sell Apple products)
14
and disparaged Luxpro’s business and products.” (Id. ¶ 56 (emphasis in original).)
15
Apple argues that these allegations are insufficient to state a claim, because Luxpro does
16
not allege any information about the identity of the purchasing agents or where and when such
17
conversations took place. However, the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9 is not
18
implicated by those allegations. Apple also argues that the allegations are insufficient, because
19
they are based on hearsay statements. The Court does not find the cases on which Apple relies
20
to be persuasive. For example, in In re Evangelos J. Karagianis (FIA Card Services, N.A.),
21
2009 Bankr. LEXIS 3844 (Bankr. D.N.H. Dec. 4, 2009), the court did not hold that hearsay
22
allegations could never be considered in support of a motion to dismiss. Rather, it found that
23
plaintiff had, in large part, incorporated allegations from other complaints in other lawsuits,
24
which it noted were “at best hearsay, or the plaintiff’s opinion about other suits.” Id., 2009
25
Bankr. LEXIS 3844, at *15.
26
27
28
1
Those entities are Elecom, Co. Ltd, Japan Airlines, Nikko VC, Seitec
Corporation, Beijing Big Boss, Longda Tech., AboCom Systems, Golden View, Co., Ltd.,
Gajah International, DataPool Systems, Best Buy, Radioshack, Wal-Mart, Starbucks
Corporation, Circuit City Stores, Inc., Bruder Products, Ltd., Fatech Co., Dai-Daichi Denki,
TKEC 3C, and ET-Mall TV Shopping.
4
1
In Newman v. Gonzales, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8527 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2009), the
2
court dismissed a complaint containing evidentiary material, because the plaintiff failed to
3
comply with Rule 8’s requirement to set forth a short, plain statement of relief. Similarly, the
4
Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision to dismiss for failure to satisfy the short, plain
5
statement requirement in Carrigan v. California State Legislature, 263 F.2d 560, 564 (9th Cir.
6
1959). The Court also does not find Bajor v. Wal-Mart Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12993, at
7
*1-2 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 16, 2010) to be instructive, because in that case the court was resolving a
8
motion to strike made in connection with a motion for summary judgment, rather than
9
addressing a motion to dismiss. Indeed, Apple’s argument on this point is better addressed by
way of a motion for summary judgment.
With the exception of Circuit City, with whom Luxpro still fails to allege that it had an
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
existing economic relationship, the Court concludes that Luxpro has cured the deficiencies
13
identified in the Court’s March 24 Order. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Apple’s motion to
14
dismiss this claim, although Luxpro shall not proceed with this claim as to Circuit City.
15
3.
Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations.
16
To state a claim for intentional interference with contractual relations, a plaintiff must
17
show: (1) a valid contract between plaintiff and a third party; (2) defendant’s knowledge of this
18
contract; (3) the defendant’s intentional acts designed to induce breach or disruption of the
19
contractual relationship; (4) actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; and (5)
20
resulting damage. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 50 Cal. 3d 1118, 1126
21
(1990).
22
In its March 24 Order, the Court found that Luxpro had failed to state a claim as to ten
23
of eleven entities identified in the SAC, because Luxpro had not alleged any facts to show that
24
Apple knew of the relationships and intentionally and wrongfully interfered with those
25
relationships.2 As set forth above, in its TAC, Luxpro alleges that purchasing agents from
26
27
28
2
Those ten entities were Beijing Huaqi Informational Digital Technology Co.,
Ltd., Beijing Qian Kun Time Digital Technology Co., Ltd., TCL Digital Electronics, Victor
Japan, Ltd., Laos Co. Ltd., N.A.K.S. Asia Limited, Funai Europe UK Representative, Keller
Trading AB, Boardman Inc., and Twister Sound Pty Ltd.
5
1
Tounsen and Fatech “confirmed to Luxpro that Apple approached all of Luxpro’s distributors
2
and retailers,” including the ten entities as to which the Court previously dismissed this claim.
3
(TAC ¶¶ 30, 75.) Luxpro also alleges that the entities with whom it had existing contracts
4
terminated those contracts because of Apple’s alleged defamatory statements and because of
5
Apple’s threats to withhold its products if these entities purchased Luxpro’s products. (See,
6
e.g., TAC ¶¶ 49, 52, 75.)
claims for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. For the reasons set
9
forth above, the Court finds those arguments to be without merit. Accordingly, the Court
10
DENIES Apple’s motion to dismiss the claim for intentional interference with contractual
11
For the Northern District of California
Apple raises the same arguments it raised in connection with its motion to dismiss the
8
United States District Court
7
relations.
12
4.
13
Under the Lanham Act, a party shall be civilly liable for making false or misleading
Violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.
14
representations in “commercial advertising or promotion.” 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B). A prima
15
facie case under the Lanham Act requires that the plaintiff show, inter alia, that the defendant
16
made a false statement about the plaintiff’s product “in commercial advertisement or
17
promotion.” Newcal Industries, Inc. v. Ikon Office Solution, 513 F.3d 1038, 1052 (9th Cir.
18
2008) (internal citation omitted) (emphasis added). “Commercial advertising or promotion” is
19
defined as:
20
21
22
(1) commercial speech; (2) by the defendant who is in commercial competition with the
plaintiff; (3) for the purpose of influencing consumers to buy defendant’s goods or
services. While the representations need not be made in a “classic advertising
campaign,” but may consist instead of more informal types of “promotion,” the
representations (4) must be disseminated sufficiently to the relevant purchasing public to
constitute “advertising” or “promotion” within that industry.
23
24
Id. at 1054 (internal citation omitted) (emphasis added). Only misrepresentations that are made
25
in the promotion or marketing of a defendant’s product are actionable under the Lanham Act.
26
See Rice v. Fox Broad. Co., 330 F.3d 1170, 1181 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that statements that
27
were not made in promotion or marketing of a product were not actionable as commercial
28
advertising or promotion).
6
1
In its March 24 Order, the Court concluded that Luxpro had not alleged facts to show
were no facts to show that the letters were designed to influence Luxpro’s customers to buy
4
Apple’s goods or services. See Zinus Inc. v. Simmons Bedding Co., 2007 WL 4287391, at *5
5
(N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2007) (concluding that although cease-and-desist letters might have
6
influenced customers to refrain from purchasing plaintiff’s product, that alone was not sufficient
7
to state a claim for false advertising under the Lanham Act); see also, Futuristic Fences, Inc. v.
8
Illusion Fence Corp., 558 F. Supp. 2d 1270, 1281 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (citing Avery Dennison
9
Corp. v. Acco Brands, Inc., 2000 WL 986995, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2000) (concluding that
10
cease-and-desist letters “were sent by [the d]efendants’ attorney, not as a marketing and sales
11
For the Northern District of California
that Apple’s demand letters constituted “commercial advertising or promotion,” because there
3
United States District Court
2
tool, but in an attempt to protect [the defendants’] legal rights”).
12
In its TAC, Luxpro alleges that Apple’s alleged threats and its statements that Luxpro’s
13
products were “cheap knockoffs” and “illegal copies,” “were made to influence” Luxpro’s
14
customers “to purchase Apple’s products.” (TAC ¶ 41; see also id. ¶¶ 56, 78.) Apple argues
15
that the new allegations regarding Apple’s purpose for making such statements are bare legal
16
conclusions, couched as facts, and are insufficient to state a claim. The Court disagrees, and it
17
concludes that these allegations are sufficient to allege that Apple’s statements, whether made
18
orally or in writing, qualify as commercial advertising or promotion.
19
Prior to the hearing, the Court sua sponte raised the issue of whether or not the
20
statements supporting Luxpro’s Lanham Act claims were actionable, which would also impact
21
Luxpro’s claims for trade libel. See, e.g., Coastal Abstract Serv., Inc. v. First Amer. Title Ins.
22
Co., 173 F.3d 725, 730-32 (9th Cir. 1999) (statements of opinion generally are not actionable).
23
In the Coastal Abstract case, the plaintiff was engaged as an escrow agent by Shearson Lehman
24
Hutton Mortgage Corp. (“Shearson”) in connection with a home loan refinancing program. Id.
25
at 729. Shearson engaged the defendant to assist with the program as well. After Shearson
26
discontinued its relationship with plaintiff, plaintiff sued the defendant for, inter alia,
27
defamation and false advertising under the Lanham Act. These claims were based on
28
7
1
statements made to Shearson that the plaintiff was “too small” to handle Shearson’s business
2
and that plaintiff was not properly licensed in California as an escrow agent. Id. at 729-30.3
3
The court concluded that these statements were not actionable. First, it noted that to
4
establish liability under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff must show that the defendant made a “‘false
5
or misleading representation of fact.’” Id. at 730 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)) (emphasis in
6
original). The court also noted that under California law, defamation “requires that the
7
offending statement ‘expressly or impliedly assert a fact that is susceptible to being proved
8
false,’ and must be able reasonably to be ‘interpreted as stating actual facts.’” Id. (quoting
9
Weller v. American Broadcasting Companies, 232 Cal. App. 3d 911, 1001 (1991)). Applying
these rules of law, the court found that the statement that plaintiff was “too small” to handle
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Shearson’s business was “mere puffery” and was “not a specific and measurable claim, capable
12
of being proved false or being reasonably interpreted as a statement of objective fact.” Id. at
13
731. Thus, as a matter of law, that statement could not support a claim under the Lanham Act
14
or for defamation. Id.
15
If Luxpro’s claims were limited to allegations that Apple called its products “cheap,” the
16
Court could easily find as a matter of law that such a statement would not be not actionable.
17
However, the crux of Luxpro’s claims is that Apple has stated that Luxpro’s products are
18
“knockoffs,” albeit cheap ones,” and “illegal copies.” These statements are similar to the
19
statements in the Coastal Abstract case that the plaintiff was not properly licensed as an escrow
20
agent. The Coastal Abstract court noted that “[a]bsent a clear and unambiguous ruling from a
21
court or agency of competent jurisdiction, statements by laypersons that purport to interpret the
22
meaning of a statute or regulation are opinion statements, and not statements of fact.” Id. at
23
731. Because the defendant’s statement regarding plaintiff’s lack of a license was an unsettled
24
matter of law, the court found that the defendant’s statement that the statute applied to
25
plaintiff’s activities was a matter of opinion and, therefore, not actionable under either the
26
Lanham Act or California defamation law. Id.
27
Plaintiff’s claims were also based on a statement by the defendant that the
plaintiff was not paying its bills, which the court concluded was actionable because it was
“clearly one of fact, able to be proven true or false.” Id. at 732
3
28
8
Apple argues that this Court should find the allegations regarding “cheap knockoffs,”
1
2
and “illegal copies” to be akin to the licensure statement in Coastal Abstract, i.e. that a fair
3
reading of the allegations in the TAC, is that these statements imply that Luxpro’s products
4
infringe Apple’s trade dress. According to Apple, such a statement is “opinion until or unless a
5
Court rules on that question.” (See Docket No. 199, Transcript of Hearing (“Tr.”) at 8:24-10:4,
6
11:24-13:7.) Luxpro argues that the statements are not opinion. In the alternative, it argues that
7
even if the statements are construed as opinions, the “opinion is based on a number of unstated
8
defamatory facts....” (Id. at 7:14-8:6.)
Luxpro relies on various unpublished and out-of-circuit authorities to support this
9
argument, primarily Alexander Binzel Corp. v. Nu-Tecsys Corp., 2000 WL 310304 (N.D. Ill.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Mar. 24, 2000). (See Tr. 6:6-24).4 In that case, the court denied a motion for new trial and
12
rejected the plaintiff’s argument that its statements that the defendant’s products were
13
“counterfeit,” which were the subject of a counterclaim, were opinion and were not capable of
14
being proved false. Alexander Binzel, 2000 WL 31034 at *5-6. The court specifically noted
15
that the letter containing the statement “exhibited an entirely factual tone, and the counterfeit
16
statement is embedded within that context.” Id., 2000 WL 31034, at *6. It therefore concluded
17
that a reasoanble juror could have found the statement literally false. Id., 2000 WL 31034, at
18
*5.
19
In light of the procedural posture of the case and in light of the fact that the TAC does
20
not contain complete copies of the letters Apple allegedly sent to Luxpro’s customers, at this
21
time the Court cannot say as a matter of law that the statements supporting this claim are not
22
actionable. Cf. Overstock.com , Inc. v. Gradient Analytics, Inc., 151 Cal. App. 4th 688, 701
23
(2007) (ruling on special motion to strike, and noting that “false statement of fact, whether
24
Luxpro also relies on PennPac Int’l, Inc. v. Rotonics Mfg., Inc., 2001 WL
569264 (E.D. Pa. May 25, 2001) and Healthpoint, Ltd. v. Ethex Corp., 2004 WL 2359420
(W.D. Tex. July 14, 2004) for the proposition that a statement of opinion may be defamatory
if it implies that it is based on unstated facts. In each of those cases, the issue of whether the
statements were or were not actionable was decided on a motion for summary judgment.
See, e.g., PennPac, 2001 WL 5699264, at *10-11; Healthpoint, 2004 WL 2359420, at *11-12
(distinguishing Coastal Abstract on the basis that although uninterpreted state laws might be
relevant to case, those laws would not determine whether the statements at issue were false
and misleading).
4
25
26
27
28
9
1
expressly stated or implied from an expression of opinion is actionable,” and that “key is not
2
parsing whether a published statement is fact or opinion, but whether a reasonable fact finder
3
could conclude the published statement declares or implies a provably false assertion of fact”)
4
(internal quotations and citations omitted).
5
6
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Apple’s motion to dismiss the Lanham Act claim,
although Apple may renew these arguments in a motion for summary judgment.
7
5.
8
Apple argues that, as a matter of law, Luxpro cannot state a claim under Section 17200
9
because Luxpro fails to allege facts showing it is entitled to restitution or injunctive relief.
a.
Restitution.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Section 17200.
It is well-established that a plaintiff cannot recover damages pursuant to a Section 17200
12
claim. Korea Supply, 29 Cal. 4th at 1144. Rather, a plaintiff bringing such a claim is limited to
13
injunctive relief and restitution. Id. Throughout its TAC, and in its opposition, Luxpro makes
14
clear that it seeks disgorgement of Apple’s profits, which it contends were obtained unlawfully.
15
In Korea Supply, the plaintiff, as Luxpro does here, brought claims for violations of Section
16
17200 and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. The plaintiff alleged
17
that the defendant used bribes and other favors to cause a company that the plaintiff represented
18
to lose a contract with the Republic of Korea. When the Republic of Korea awarded the
19
contract to the defendant, the plaintiff lost the opportunity to obtain a commission it would have
20
earned if the Republic of Korea had awarded the contract to the plaintiff’s client. Korea Supply,
21
29 Cal. 4th at 1140. The plaintiff then sought to obtain the profits the defendant gained from
22
the contract with the Republic of Korea.
23
The California Supreme Court concluded plaintiff could not state a claim under Section
24
17200, and, in doing so, explained the meaning of the terms “restitution” and “disgorgement.”
25
Korea Supply, 29 Cal. 4th at 1140. An order for “restitution” is an order that compels a
26
“defendant to return money obtained through an unfair business practice to those persons in
27
interest from whom the property was taken, that is, to persons who had an ownership interest in
28
the property or those claiming through that person.” Id. at 1144-45 (quoting Kraus v. Trinity
10
1
Management Services, Inc., 23 Cal. 4th 116, 126-27 (2000)); see also Cortez v. Purolater Air
2
Filtration Products Co., 23 Cal. 4th 163, 177 (2000) (goal of restitution is to restore plaintiff to
3
status quo ante).
4
In contrast, “disgorgement” is a broader remedy. “Disgorgement ‘may include a
Kraus, 23 Cal. 4th at 127). An order for “disgorgement” is defined as an order: (1)
7
“compel[ling] a defendant to surrender all money obtained through an unfair business practice
8
even though not all is to be restored to the person from whom it was obtained or those claiming
9
under those persons,” or (2) compelling a defendant “to surrender ... all profits earned as a result
10
of an unfair business practice regardless of whether those profits represent money taken directly
11
For the Northern District of California
restitutionary element, but it is not so limited.’” Korea Supply, 29 Cal. 4th at 1145 (quoting
6
United States District Court
5
from persons who were victims of the unfair practice.” Id. at 1145 (quoting Kraus, 23 Cal. 4th
12
at 127).
13
The Court then clarified that disgorgement of profits is allowed in Section 17200 claims
14
only to the extent it constitutes restitution, i.e., profits unfairly obtained to the extent they
15
represent money in which the plaintiff has an ownership interest. Id. at 1145, 1148; see also
16
Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 135 Cal. App. 4th 663, 699 (2006) (a plaintiff can seek
17
money or property as restitution where such “money or property identified as belonging in good
18
conscience to the plaintiff could clearly be traced to particular funds or property in the
19
defendant’s possession”) (citation omitted).
20
Applying these principles to the facts before it, the Korea Supply court noted that “it
21
[was] clear that plaintiff [was] not seeking the return of money or property that was once in its
22
possession. [The plaintiff had] not given any money to [the defendant]; instead it was from the
23
Republic of Korea that [the defendant] received its profits.” 29 Cal. 4th at 1149. In light of
24
these facts, the court found that “[a]ny award that plaintiff would recover from defendants
25
would not be restitutionary as it would not replace any money or property that defendants took
26
directly from plaintiff.” Id. Therefore, because the plaintiff’s requested remedy was
27
nonrestitutionary, it was not entitled to disgorgement of the defendant’s profits under Section
28
17200. Id. at 1140, 1149.
11
1
The facts underlying Luxpro’s Section 17200 claim are the same facts that support each
prospective economic advantage. Luxpro contends it had a “vested interest” in the revenues
4
and profits that it would have earned from its distributorship agreements. A “vested interest is
5
one that is unconditional, absolute, and not contingent.” Pegasus Satellite Television, Inc. v.
6
DirectTV, Inc., 318 F. Supp. 2d 968, 979 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (internal quotations and citations
7
omitted). Like the plaintiff in the Korea Supply case, Luxpro alleges facts that show it lost
8
business opportunities and potential future revenues with entities with whom it did not have a
9
contractual relationship. To the extent Luxpro suggests that Apple should be required to
10
disgorge any profits it earned as a result of this conduct, that is exactly the type of non-
11
For the Northern District of California
of Luxpro’s other claims for relief, including its claims for intentional interference with
3
United States District Court
2
restitutionary disgorgement precluded under Korea Supply. Korea Supply, 29 Cal. 4th at 1140,
12
1149; see also MAI Sys. Corp. v. UIPS, 856 F. Supp. 538, 542 (N.D. Cal. 1994)
13
(“[c]ompensation for a lost business opportunity is a measure of damages and not restitution to
14
the alleged victims”).
15
However, Luxpro also alleges that it had contracts to distribute a certain number of MP3
16
players with the eleven entities identified in paragraphs 30a-30k of the TAC. Luxpro has not
17
set forth the specific terms of these contracts, and, as this case progresses, discovery may show
18
that the terms of these alleged contracts show that Luxpro’s interest in profits and/or revenues
19
from these contracts was not “vested.” Similarly, Luxpro ultimately may not be able to prove
20
that money or property that should, in good conscience, belong to can be traced to particular
21
funds or property in the Apple’s possession. However, at this stage of the proceedings, the
22
Court cannot say as a matter of law that Luxpro’s interest in profits from those eleven entities
23
was contingent or conditional. Therefore, to the extent Luxpro’s Section 17200 claim is
24
premised on conduct relating to those specific entities, Luxpro has alleged facts sufficient to
25
state a claim for relief under Section 17200.
26
27
28
b.
Injunctive Relief.
Apple also moves to dismiss the Section 17200 claim on the basis that Luxpro does not
allege that Apple’s conduct is ongoing, or likely to recur. Thus, Apple argues that Luxpro
12
1
cannot show it is entitled to injunctive relief. Under Section 17200, “a plaintiff cannot receive
2
an injunction for past conduct unless he shows that the conduct will probably recur.” Sun
3
Microsystems v. Microsoft Corp., 188 F.3d 1115, 1123 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing People v.
4
Toomey, 157 Cal. App. 3d 1, 20 (1984)); see also Madrid v. Perot Systems Corp., 130 Cal. App.
5
4th 440, 465 (2005) (citing Toomey).
6
Throughout its TAC, Luxrpo alleges that the conduct on which it premises its claims
7
occurred between 2005 and 2007. (See, e.g., TAC ¶¶ 49-51, 58-59, 62.) Luxpro also alleges
8
that “[b]y the time Luxpro had successfully defeated Apple’s abusive litigation and product
9
disparagement strategy in the Taiwanese District Court and before the Taiwan Trade
Commission, it was too late to get back into the global MP3 market, and too late to penetrate
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Apple’s vise-grip on the United States MP3 market.” (Id. ¶ 63; see also id. ¶¶ 44-45.) These
12
allegations demonstrate that Luxpro’s allegations relate to Apple’s conduct in the past.
13
However, Luxrpo has not alleged any facts showing that Apple’s conduct is likely to recur. As
14
such, Luxpro has not alleged facts showing that it is entitled to injunctive relief under Section
15
17200. See, e.g., Madrid, 130 Cal. App. 4th at 465 (affirming trial court’s decision to sustain
16
demurrer where plaintiff failed to allege facts showing that conduct was likely to recur).
17
CONCLUSION
18
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART
19
Apple’s motion to dismiss, and it DENIES Luxpro’s request to reconsider the ruling on the
20
Noerr-Pennington doctrine. In its March 24 Order, the Court stated that it granted Luxpro one
21
final opportunity to amend its claims and, as such, the Court shall not permit any further
22
amendments.
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 12, 2011
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25
26
27
28
13
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?