PhoneDog, LLC v. Kravitz

Filing 16

Proposed Order re 13 Opposition/Response to Motion TO DISMISS by PhoneDog, LLC. (Kirke, John) (Filed on 8/18/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

JOHN C. KIRKE, #175055
SOPHIA E.C. SCHWARTZ, #272915
DONAHUE GALLAGHER WOODS LLP
Attorneys at Law
1999 Harrison Street, 25th Floor
Oakland, California 94612-3520
P.O. Box 12979
Oakland, California 94604-2979
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

6
7

Attorneys for Plaintiff
PHONEDOG, LLC

8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

PHONEDOG, LLC, a Delaware
corporation,

13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 3:11-cv-03474-MEJ
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT NOAH KRAVITZ'S
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

NOAH KRAVITZ, an individual,
Defendant.

Date:
Time:
Dept.:
Judge:

September 15, 2011
10:00 a.m.
Courtroom B - 15th Floor
Maria-Elena James

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER

CASE NO. 11-CV-03474-MEJ

1

On September 15, 2011, Defendant Noah Kravitz's ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss

2

Plaintiff PhoneDog, LLC's ("PhoneDog") Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

3

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and For Failure to State a Claim Under Federal

4

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ("Motion to Dismiss") came on regularly for hearing before the

5

Honorable Maria-Elena James in Courtroom B on the 15th floor of this Court. John C. Kirke of

6

Donahue Gallagher Woods LLP appeared on behalf of PhoneDog, and Cary Kletter of Kletter

7

Law Firm appeared on behalf of Defendant.

8

The Court, having heard oral argument and considered the pleadings in support of and in

9

opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, finds that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED in its

10

entirety. The Court specifically finds the following:

11

1.

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction is

12

DENIED.

In its Complaint, PhoneDog satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil

13

Procedure 8(a)(1) by adequately pleading an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000;

14

2.

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Cause of Action for

15

Misappropriation of Trade Secrets For Failure to State a Claim is DENIED. In its Complaint,

16

PhoneDog satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) by sufficiently

17

alleging each element of its claim and pleading misappropriation with the requisite particularity;

18

3.

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action for Intentional

19

Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage For Failure to State a Claim is DENIED. In

20

its Complaint, PhoneDog satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) by

21

sufficiently alleging (1) an existing economic relationship that would have probably resulted in an

22

economic benefit and (2) an intentional act by Defendant that actually disrupted that relationship.

23

See Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal. 4th 1134 (2003);

24

4.

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Cause of Action for Negligent

25

Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage For Failure to State a Claim is DENIED. In

26

its Complaint, PhoneDog satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) by

27

sufficiently alleging (1) an existing economic relationship that would have probably resulted in an

28

economic benefit and (2) a negligent act by Defendant that actually disrupted that relationship.
-1[PROPOSED] ORDER

CASE NO. 11-CV-03474-MEJ

1

See North American Chemical Co. v. Superior Court, 59 Cal. App. 4th 764, 786 (1997); and

2

5.

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Fourth Cause of Action for Conversion

3

For Failure to State a Claim is DENIED. In its Complaint, PhoneDog satisfies the requirements

4

of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) by sufficiently alleging each element of its claim.

5
6

[In the alternative, the Court finds that PhoneDog's Request for Leave to Amend its
Complaint is GRANTED.]

7

IT IS SO ORDERED:

8
9
10

Dated:
Judge of the United States District Court

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2[PROPOSED] ORDER

CASE NO. 11-CV-03474-MEJ