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:
(510) 451-0544
Facsimile:
(510) 832-1486
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
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?