PhoneDog, LLC v. Kravitz
Filing
46
MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Answer and Counterclaims filed by Noah Kravitz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Keane, Margaret) (Filed on 4/30/2012)
EXHIBIT A
1
2
3
4
MARGARET A. KEANE (State Bar No. 255378)
mkeane@dl.com
DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP
Post Montgomery Center
One Montgomery Street, Suite 3500
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 951-1100
Facsimile: (415) 951-1180
5
6
7
8
Cary Kletter (State Bar No. 210230)
Sally Trung Nguyen (State Bar No. 267275)
ckletter@kletterlaw.com
KLETTER LAW FIRM
1900 S. Norfolk Street, Suite 350
San Mateo, CA 94403
Telephone: (415) 434-3400
9
Attorneys for Defendant Noah Kravitz
10
11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
PHONEDOG, LLC, a Delaware corporation,
14
Plaintiff,
v.
15
NOAH KRAVITZ, an individual,
16
Defendant.
17
18
19
20
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:11-cv-03474 (MEJ)
NOAH KRAVITZ’S FIRST AMENDED
COUNTERCLAIMS AND ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR
MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE
SECRETS, INTERFERENCE WITH
PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE AND CONVERSION
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-03474 (MEJ)
1
NOAH KRAVITZ’S FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS AND ANSWER TO
2
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
3
Defendant Noah Kravitz (“Kravitz”) answers the First Amended Complaint (the “Amended
4
Complaint”) filed on November 29, 2011 by plaintiff PhoneDog, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “PhoneDog”)
5
as follows:
6
7
Jurisdiction
1.
Kravitz lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegation that PhoneDog is
8
a Delaware Corporation and, on that basis, denies the allegation. Kravitz admits, on information and
9
belief, that two similar sounding limited liability companies are registered with the State of
10
Delaware: PhoneDog Communications LLC and PhoneDog Media LLC. Kravitz admits, on
11
information and belief, that PhoneDog’s principal place of business is Mount Pleasant, South
12
Carolina.
13
2.
14
15
Kravitz admits that he is a California resident and resides in Alameda County,
California.
3.
Kravitz denies the allegations of paragraph 3. Kravitz specifically denies that
16
PhoneDog’s causes of action against him state claims for relief in excess of $75,000 and, therefore,
17
Kravitz denies that this Court has original jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
18
19
Venue
4.
Kravitz admits that if this court had original jurisdiction of this matter under 28
20
U.S.C. § 1332(a) then venue in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
21
California would be proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) because Kravitz resides in this judicial district
22
and is subject to personal jurisdiction here.
23
24
THE PARTIES
5.
Kravitz lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegation that PhoneDog is
25
a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and, on that basis,
26
denies the allegation. Kravitz admits, on information and belief, that two similar sounding limited
27
liability companies are registered with the State of Delaware: PhoneDog Communications LLC and
28
FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
1
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-03474 (MEJ)
1
PhoneDog Media LLC. Kravitz admits, on information and belief, that PhoneDog’s principal place
2
of business is Mount Pleasant, South Carolina.
3
6.
Kravitz admits that he is a California resident and resides in Alameda County, CA.
4
5
6
7
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
7.
Kravitz lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 7,
and, on that basis, denies them.
8.
Kravitz admits that PhoneDog has in the past and presently continues to operate
8
different websites that contain reviews of mobile products such as phones, tablet computers and the
9
like. Kravitz admits that PhoneDog’s websites permit users to research these mobile products and
10
compare prices for these products. Except as expressly admitted, Kravitz denies any remaining
11
allegations in paragraph 8.
12
13
14
15
16
9.
Kravitz lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 9,
and, on that basis, denies them.
10.
Kravitz lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 10,
and, on that basis, denies them.
11.
Kravitz admits that PhoneDog’s agents and employees use social media such as
17
Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Except as expressly admitted, Kravitz denies any remaining
18
allegations in paragraph 11.
19
12.
Kravitz admits that some of PhoneDog’s agents and employees maintain Twitter
20
accounts. Kravitz admits that some of PhoneDog’s agents and employees use Twitter accounts
21
within the scope of the services they perform for PhoneDog and use these accounts to direct their
22
followers to PhoneDog’s website. Except as expressly admitted, Kravitz denies any remaining
23
allegations in paragraph 12.
24
25
26
27
28
13.
Kravitz lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 13,
and, on that basis, denies them.
14.
Kravitz lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 14,
and, on that basis, denies them.
15.
Kravitz denies the allegations of paragraph 15.
FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
2
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-03474 (MEJ)
1
16.
Kravitz denies the allegations of paragraph 16.
2
17.
Kravitz admits that PhoneDog initially hired him as a part-time product reviewer and
3
video blogger on or around April 13, 2006. Kravitz admits that he submitted written and video
4
content to PhoneDog, which PhoneDog then reviewed, approved and submitted to its users via
5
PhoneDog’s websites. Kravitz admits that beginning in approximately January 2009 he began using
6
his Twitter account (the “Account”) which, at the time, had the handle @PhoneDog_Noah, to tweet
7
content related to PhoneDog. Except as expressly admitted, Kravitz denies any remaining
8
allegations in paragraph 17.
9
18.
Kravitz admits that, on occasion, he used the Account to promote PhoneDog’s
10
services but denies that more than half of the tweets from the Account related to PhoneDog. Kravitz
11
denies that he accessed the Account using any confidential information or other trade secrets
12
belonging to PhoneDog; to the contrary, neither the identity of the Account’s followers nor the
13
password used to access the Account are trade secrets that belong to PhoneDog. In fact, after
14
Kravitz began using the Account in January 2009, he changed the password to the Account and,
15
thereafter, PhoneDog did not have access to or otherwise know the password. Kravitz lacks
16
sufficient information to admit or deny any remaining allegations in paragraph 18 and, on that basis,
17
denies those allegations.
18
19.
Kravitz admits that as of October 2010, the Account had approximately 17,000
19
Twitter followers. Except as expressly admitted, Kravitz denies any remaining allegations in
20
paragraph 19 and specifically denies both that there is any industry standard for the value of a
21
Twitter follower and that as of October 2010 the Account had a value of approximately $42,500 per
22
month.
23
20.
Kravitz admits that he resigned from PhoneDog in October 2010. Kravitz admits that
24
immediately after his resignation, he changed the Twitter handle for the Account to @noahkravitz.
25
Kravitz admits that he presently uses the Account under the handle @noahkravitz. Except as
26
expressly admitted, Kravitz denies any remaining allegations in paragraph 20. Kravitz specifically
27
denies that PhoneDog requested that he relinquish use of the Account following his resignation. To
28
the contrary, PhoneDog consented to Kravitz’s continued use of his Account after his resignation
FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
3
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-03474 (MEJ)
1
under the handle @noahkravitz. In fact, on October 18, 2010, PhoneDog used its website to market
2
Kravitz’s continued use of the Account under the new handle @noahkravitz, and after that date
3
repeatedly asked him to send out tweets under the @noahkravitz handle on PhoneDog’s behalf.
4
Moreover, at no point in time did PhoneDog ever informally request that Kravitz cease using the
5
Account after his resignation. Rather, the first oral or written statement from PhoneDog to Kravitz
6
containing any assertion that the Account belongs to PhoneDog and that Kravitz is obligated to cease
7
using the Account came on July 17, 2011when Kravitz was served with PhoneDog’s lawsuit—nine
8
months after Kravitz changed the handle of the Account and began tweeting as @noahkravitz.
9
21.
Kravitz admits that between October and December 2010 he provided freelance
10
services to a variety of media outlets and that on December 6, 2010 he accepted a full-time position
11
with TechnoBuffalo which operates the website www.technobuffalo.com. Kravitz admits that
12
TechnoBuffalo offers some services that are competitive with services offered by PhoneDog.
13
Except as expressly admitted, Kravitz denies any remaining allegations in paragraph 21.
14
22.
Kravitz admits that he continues to use the Account under the handle @noahkravitz.
15
Except as expressly admitted, Kravitz denies any remaining allegations in paragraph 22. Kravitz
16
specifically denies that he used any confidential information belonging to PhoneDog to access the
17
Account. Kravitz further denies his use of the Account constitutes communication with
18
“PhoneDog’s Followers.” Kravitz also denies that he needs permission from PhoneDog to
19
communicate with his followers on Twitter.
20
23.
Kravitz denies the allegations in paragraph 23.
21
24.
Kravitz admits that while he was employed at PhoneDog he became a contributor to
22
“Street Signs” on CNBC and “Fox Business Live.” Kravitz admits that he continues to contribute to
23
these programs. Except as expressly admitted, Kravitz denies any remaining allegations in
24
paragraph 24.
25
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
26
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
27
(Alleged Misappropriation of Trade Secrets)
28
25.
Paragraph 25 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required.
FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
4
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-03474 (MEJ)
1
26.
Kravitz denies the allegations in paragraph 26.
2
27.
Kravitz denies the allegations in paragraph 27.
3
28.
Kravitz denies the allegations in paragraph 28.
4
29.
Kravitz denies the allegations in paragraph 29. Kravitz specifically denies that
5
PhoneDog has suffered damages due to his use of the Account. Kravitz further denies that he has
6
been unjustly enriched due to his continued use of the Account.
7
30.
Kravitz denies the allegations in paragraph 30.
8
31.
Kravitz denies the allegations in paragraph 31. Kravitz specifically denies that his
9
use of the Account is illegal or otherwise exploits PhoneDog’s trade secrets. Kravitz further denies
10
that PhoneDog has no adequate remedy at law for the alleged misappropriation or that PhoneDog
11
would be required to maintain a multiplicity of judicial proceedings in order to protect its interests
12
here.
13
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
14
(Alleged Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage)
15
32.
Paragraph 32 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required.
16
33.
Kravitz denies the allegations in paragraph 33.
17
34.
Kravitz admits that his appearances on “Street Signs” and “Fox News Live” were, in
18
part, designed to drive traffic to PhoneDog’s website and that Kravitz was aware of PhoneDog’s
19
desire to drive traffic to the website when he made said appearances. Except as expressly admitted,
20
Kravitz denies any remaining allegations in paragraph 34.
21
35.
Kravitz denies the allegations in paragraph 35. Kravitz specifically denies each of the
22
following allegations: that PhoneDog requested he relinquish the Account prior to filing its
23
complaint in this matter; that Kravitz attempted to discredit PhoneDog through his use of the
24
Account; that Kravitz wrongly disparaged PhoneDog through his use of the Account; and that
25
Kravitz wrongly used PhoneDog’s economic relationships to promote either himself or
26
TechnoBuffalo.
27
36.
Kravitz denies the allegations in paragraph 36.
28
FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
5
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-03474 (MEJ)
1
2
37.
Kravitz denies the allegations in paragraph 37 and specifically denies that any of his
conduct constitutes interference with PhoneDog’s prospective economic advantage.
3
38.
Kravitz denies the allegations in paragraph 38.
4
39.
Kravitz denies the allegations in paragraph 39.
5
40.
Kravitz denies the allegations in paragraph 40. Kravitz specifically denies that he has
6
interfered with PhoneDog’s prospective economic advantage or damaged its reputation or goodwill.
7
Kravitz further denies that PhoneDog has no adequate remedy at law for the injuries PhoneDog
8
alleges he has caused them or that PhoneDog would be required to maintain a multiplicity of judicial
9
proceedings in order to protect its interests here.
10
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
11
(Alleged Negligent Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage)
12
41.
Paragraph 41 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required.
13
42.
Kravitz denies the allegations in paragraph 42.
14
43.
Kravitz denies the allegations in paragraph 43.
15
44.
Kravitz denies the allegations in paragraph 44.
16
45.
Kravitz denies the allegations in paragraph 45 and specifically denies that he
17
18
19
negligently disrupted any of PhoneDog’s economic relationships.
46.
Kravitz denies the allegations in paragraph 46 and specifically denies that PhoneDog
has suffered any damages due to any of the acts alleged in the Amended Complaint.
20
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
21
(Conversion)
22
47.
Paragraph 47 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required.
23
48.
Kravitz denies the allegations in paragraph 48.
24
49.
Kravitz admits that PhoneDog consented to his use of the Account while he was a
25
contributor to PhoneDog and that PhoneDog consented to Kravitz’s use of the Account after he
26
resigned from PhoneDog. Except as expressly admitted, Kravitz denies any remaining allegations in
27
paragraph 49. Kravitz specifically denies that he needed PhoneDog’s permission to use the Account
28
FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
6
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-03474 (MEJ)
1
and denies that he was required to return the Account to PhoneDog when he ceased working for the
2
company.
3
50.
Kravitz admits that he continues to use the Account with the handle @noahkravitz
4
and admits that he markets his services and TechnoBuffalo’s services using the Account. Except as
5
expressly admitted, Kravitz denies any remaining allegations in paragraph 50. Kravitz specifically
6
denies that he converted the Account and further denies that PhoneDog requested that he relinquish
7
the Account to PhoneDog on or about October 15, 2010. In fact, on October 18, 2010, PhoneDog
8
published content to its website indicating that Kravitz would retain the Account under the new
9
handle @noahkravitz. PhoneDog only requested that Defendant relinquish the Account after Kravitz
10
sued PhoneDog for unpaid wages in June 2011. The first communication from PhoneDog to Kravitz
11
requesting that he relinquish the account came on July 17, 2011, when PhoneDog served Kravitz
12
with its complaint in this matter.
13
14
15
16
17
51.
Kravitz admits that in October 2010, the Account had approximately 17,000
followers. Except as expressly admitted, Kravitz denies any remaining allegations in paragraph 51.
52.
Kravitz lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 52,
and, on that basis, denies them.
53.
Kravitz denies the allegations in paragraph 53.
18
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
19
These paragraphs set forth the statement of relief requested by PhoneDog to which no
20
response is required. Kravitz denies that PhoneDog is entitled to any of the requested relief and
21
denies any allegations contained in the Prayer for Relief to which a response is required.
22
23
DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
PhoneDog’s demand that all issues be determined by a jury trial does not state any allegation
24
and Kravitz is not required to respond. To the extent that any allegations are included in the
25
demand, Kravitz denies these allegations.
26
Kravitz denies each and every allegation of PhoneDog’s Amended Complaint not
27
specifically admitted or otherwise responded to above. Kravitz specifically denies that he has
28
converted PhoneDog’s property or is liable to PhoneDog or any other party for conversion. Kravitz
FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
7
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-03474 (MEJ)
1
further denies that he has interfered with PhoneDog’s economic relationships or is liable for
2
interference with any economic relationships belonging to PhoneDog. Kravitz further denies that
3
PhoneDog is entitled to any relief whatsoever of any kind against Kravitz as a result of any act of
4
Kravitz or any person or entity acting on behalf of Kravitz.
5
DEFENSES
6
First Defense – Failure to State a Claim
7
1.
The Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
8
9
Second Defense – Unclean Hands
2.
PhoneDog’s claims are barred because PhoneDog has come to the Court with unclean
10
hands due to the express and implied representations it made to Kravitz that Kravitz would
11
permanently have the exclusive right to use the Account and due to the express and implied consent
12
it gave to Kravitz to continue using the Account after his resignation in October 2010. PhoneDog
13
only attempted to disavow these representations and revoke its consent when it filed its initial
14
complaint in this matter on July 15, 2011.
15
16
17
Third Defense – Laches
3.
PhoneDog’s claims are barred because PhoneDog’s nine month delay in asserting, let
alone prosecuting, these claims was unreasonable and has prejudiced Kravitz.
18
19
Fourth Defense – Failure to Mitigate Damages
4.
PhoneDog’s claims are barred because PhoneDog has failed to mitigate its damages.
20
The identity of the followers of Twitter handle @noahkravitz was, at all times, in the public domain
21
and available to PhoneDog, however PhoneDog did not seek to attract these followers to a new
22
Twitter handle or otherwise attempt to replace the advertising revenue it alleges it lost due to
23
Kravitz’s use of the Account.
24
25
Fifth Defense – Waiver and Estoppel
5.
PhoneDog’s claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver and/or estoppel as
26
PhoneDog did not assert ownership over the Account at any time prior to July 2011—years after
27
Kravitz began using the Account. Kravitz relied on PhoneDog’s statements that the Account was his
28
and if the Account is returned to PhoneDog, Kravitz will lose the Twitter following that he spent
FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
8
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-03474 (MEJ)
1
time and effort building. In addition, if Kravitz is required to pay damages to PhoneDog based on
2
the size of the Twitter following he built while contributing to PhoneDog, then Kravitz will have
3
unknowingly increased his liability to PhoneDog by detrimentally relying on PhoneDog’s statements
4
that he was entitled to permanent and exclusive use of the Account.
5
Sixth Defense – Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
6
6.
PhoneDog’s claims are barred because, based on the allegations in PhoneDog’s
7
Amended Complaint, the amount in controversy here is less than $75,000 and, therefore, this Court
8
does not have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
9
Seventh Defense – Disclosure & Ratification
10
7.
PhoneDog’s claims are barred on the ground that material facts concerning the
11
Account were fully disclosed and ratified by PhoneDog which knew that Kravitz had exclusive use
12
and control of the Account while he contributed to PhoneDog and during the many months after he
13
left the company. PhoneDog never asserted ownership over the Account during this period of time.
14
Eighth Defense – Failure to Join Twitter
15
8.
PhoneDog’s claims for provisional remedies are barred because it has failed to join
16
Twitter, the ultimate owner of the account and party with authority to return the Account to
17
PhoneDog. Complete relief in this action cannot be accorded without joining Twitter, as PhoneDog
18
claims to be the owner of the Twitter account. Deciding the issue of ownership of the account
19
without the participation of Twitter could deprive Twitter of its claimed interest in the account at
20
issue.
21
22
Ninth Defense – Consent, Ratification and Acquiescence
9.
PhoneDog’s claims are barred by the doctrines of consent, ratification, and/or
23
acquiescence by PhoneDog which knew that Kravitz had exclusive use and control of the Account
24
while he contributed to PhoneDog and during the many months after he left the company but never
25
asserted ownership over the Account.
26
27
28
Tenth Defense – Transfer
10.
PhoneDog’s claims are barred because, to the extent PhoneDog ever owned any
interest in the Account, it irrevocably transferred that interest to Kravitz when he began using the
FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
9
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-03474 (MEJ)
1
Account.
2
3
4
Eleventh Defense – Miscalculation of Damages
11.
PhoneDog has overstated the valuation of the Account and therefore is not entitled to
the amount of damages requested in the Amended Complaint.
5
6
Twelfth Defense – No Trade Secrets
12.
PhoneDog’s claims are barred because the Account password is not a trade secret
7
belonging to PhoneDog because PhoneDog did not know let alone make efforts to protect the
8
password to the Account. Similarly, the identity of the Account’s Twitter followers was never a
9
trade secret because this information was always available to the public.
10
11
Thirteenth Defense – Statute of Limitations
13.
PhoneDog’s claims are barred because they allege that Kravitz has breached an
12
obligation to return the Account to PhoneDog. This alleged obligation to return the Account to
13
PhoneDog was not in writing. Under Cal. Code Civ. P. § 339, any action founded upon breach of a
14
contract not in writing must be brought within two years of the breach. Here, the cause of action
15
accrued when Kravitz asserted that he had the permanent and exclusive right to use the Account and
16
began tweeting personal matters in February 2009—more than two years before PhoneDog filed this
17
litigation.
18
19
20
Fourteenth Defense – Implied License
14.
PhoneDog’s claims are barred by the doctrine of implied license because PhoneDog
provided Kravitz with authorization, implied or explicit, to use the Account permanently.
21
Fifteenth Defense – Forfeiture or Abandonment
22
15.
PhoneDog’s claims are barred to the extent it has forfeited or abandoned its right to
23
use the Account.
24
25
26
Sixteenth Defense – Innocent Intent
16.
PhoneDog’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Kravitz’s conduct was in
good faith and with non-willful intent, at all times.
27
28
FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
10
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-03474 (MEJ)
1
2
Seventeenth Defense – Unconstitutionally Excessive Damages
17.
PhoneDog’s claims are barred because the damages sought are unconstitutionally
3
excessive and disproportionate to any actual damages that may have been sustained in violation of
4
the Due Process Clause.
5
6
Eighteenth Defense – No Injunctive Relief
18.
PhoneDog has not suffered any irreparable injury, PhoneDog has an adequate remedy
7
at law, injunctive relief would be contrary to the public interest, and PhoneDog is not entitled to
8
injunctive relief.
9
10
11
COUNTERCLAIMS
As and for his counterclaims against plaintiff PhoneDog Media, LLC, Kravitz respectfully
shows as follow:
12
The Parties
13
1.
Noah Kravitz (“Kravitz”) is an individual residing in Alameda County, California.
14
2.
PhoneDog, LLC (“PhoneDog”) is the plaintiff in this litigation. However, Kravitz
15
has reviewed the entity search function on the website maintained by the State of Delaware,
16
Department of State: Division of Corporations. (https://delecorp.delaware.gov/tin/controller) and
17
there is no record of an entity known as PhoneDog, LLC on this site. Instead, there are records of
18
two other entities with similar names: PhoneDog Media LLC (incorporated on 7/24/2002) and
19
PhoneDog Communications LLC (incorporated on 1/22/2004). It appears to Kravitz that plaintiff
20
PhoneDog, LLC is a d/b/a or affiliate of one of these other PhoneDog entities. If this is the case and
21
PhoneDog, LLC is not an entity with legal existence, then Kravitz will amend his counterclaims to
22
add an entity with a legal existence such as PhoneDog Media LLC or PhoneDog Communications
23
LLC. As his investigation is in its preliminary stages, Kravitz initially raises his counterclaims
24
solely against PhoneDog, LLC, the current plaintiff and counter defendant in this litigation.
25
26
Jurisdiction and Venue
3.
Subject to Kravitz’s defenses and denials, Kravitz alleges that this Court has
27
jurisdiction over the subject matter of these counterclaims under, without limitation, 28 U.S.C. §§
28
1332(a), 1367(a), 2201(a), 2202.
FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
11
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-03474 (MEJ)
1
4.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over PhoneDog.
2
3
Factual Background
5.
In approximately April 2006, PhoneDog hired Kravitz as a part-time, freelance
4
reviewer of cellular phones. Kravitz was initially paid by PhoneDog on a per-post basis related to
5
the amount of content he contributed. Over time, Kravitz’s role grew to include writing reviews and
6
blog posts, producing videos, covering various aspects of the wireless industry including hardware,
7
software and service reviews, news, and rumors, as well as opinion pieces. These reviews and blog
8
posts were posted to PhoneDog’s website: www.phonedog.com.
9
6.
Kravitz continued to contribute to PhoneDog for a number of years after April 2006
10
and held progressively more senior titles at PhoneDog: Cell Phone Editor, Senior Editor and later
11
Editor-in-Chief. Over time, Kravitz became one of Phone Dog’s most prominent and heavily
12
trafficked contributors. In an effort to retain Kravitz’s services, PhoneDog agreed to enter into an
13
agreement with Kravitz on June 1, 2008. Pursuant to this agreement (“Commission Agreement”),
14
PhoneDog agreed to pay Kravitz commission wages equal to 15% of all of PhoneDog’s gross
15
advertising revenue received from “applicable sources to Noah Kravitz”.
16
7.
In addition to gross advertising revenue under the Commission Agreement, Kravitz
17
also began receiving monthly payments from PhoneDog in November 2008 in consideration of the
18
five to ten hours a week he spent managing a number of PhoneDog’s other editors.
19
8.
On July 1, 2009, Tom Klein, PhoneDog’s founder, reaffirmed the validity of the
20
Commission Agreement to Kravitz. At all times, however, Kravitz was paid on a 1099 basis—not
21
with W-2s. In addition, there was never anything in Kravitz’s agreements with PhoneDog that
22
prevented him from taking other work with another company. In fact, while he was contributing
23
blog posts to PhoneDog and managing the work of other editors, Kravitz and a friend spent a number
24
of months working on a start-up venture.
25
9.
In October 2010, Kravitz resigned from PhoneDog for personal reasons. On
26
December 6, 2010 Kravitz accepted a full-time position at TechnoBuffalo. On December 14, 2010
27
Klein represented to Kravitz that it was not acceptable for Kravitz to publish mobile content while he
28
FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
12
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-03474 (MEJ)
1
was receiving compensation from PhoneDog and noted that this “would be standard no-compete
2
protocol for any company.”
3
10.
Following Kravitz’s resignation, PhoneDog refused to pay Kravitz amounts due to
4
him under the Commission Agreement. In December 2010, PhoneDog issued Kravitz a check in the
5
amount of approximately $8,261.64 (constituting one monthly payment of Kravitz’s 15% share of
6
the gross advertising revenue). Shortly thereafter, PhoneDog cancelled the aforementioned check
7
before Kravitz received it. After numerous unsuccessful attempts to resolve the dispute without
8
litigation, on June 8, 2011, Kravitz filed suit against PhoneDog in the Superior Court of California,
9
County of Alameda (the “State Court Litigation”).
10
11
12
11.
PhoneDog responded to Kravitz’s State Court Litigation by filing a separate lawsuit
in this Court on July 15, 2011 (the “Federal Court Litigation”).
12.
The Federal Court Litigation—which revolves around a Twitter account—raises four
13
claims against Kravitz. The claims in the Federal Court Litigation pertain to conduct by Kravitz that
14
PhoneDog never once mentioned it objected to prior to the date the Federal Court Litigation was
15
filed. In fact, PhoneDog expressly ratified the conduct by Kravitz that underlies the claims for relief
16
alleged in the Federal Court Litigation. The Federal Court Litigation represents PhoneDog’s attempt
17
to retaliate against Kravitz for filing the State Court Litigation and to employ its deep pockets in an
18
effort to cow Kravitz into dropping the State Court Litigation.
19
The Twitter Account
20
13.
On or about January 8, 2009, Kravitz began using a Twitter account (the “Account”)
21
with the handle @PhoneDog_Noah. On information and belief, another PhoneDog employee named
22
Ryan Rae (“Rae”) created this Account using Twitter’s services and it was transferred to Kravitz by
23
Rae in January 2009. After Rae provided Kravitz with access to the Account, Kravitz changed the
24
password to the Account. After Kravitz changed the password to the Account, PhoneDog never
25
again knew the password to the Account and never had access to the Account.
26
maintaining the password to the Account, Kravitz controlled all content on the Account. At the time
27
the Account was transferred to Kravitz, PhoneDog never expressed to Kravitz he would be required
28
to return access to the Account to PhoneDog in the event he resigned from the company. Kravitz
FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
13
In addition to
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-03474 (MEJ)
1
understood it to be the case that he had permanent and exclusive access to the Account and that he
2
was entitled to continued access even if he resigned from PhoneDog. Accordingly, after receiving
3
access to the Account he immediately ceased using another Twitter handle (@kravykrav) that he had
4
created in May 2008 and under which he had already built a following.
5
14.
Kravitz used the Account to share information concerning his life, opinions, work and
6
a variety of other subjects—for example, his favorite TV shows, sports teams and music. Kravitz
7
estimates that more than 50% of the tweets from the Account were personal in nature and completely
8
unrelated to PhoneDog. Kravitz tweeted about all manner of subjects at all hours of the day and
9
night. Kravitz, however, also tweeted to followers of the Account a variety of information
10
concerning PhoneDog. Kravitz’s tweets had the effect of driving traffic to PhoneDog’s websites.
11
Under the Commission Agreement, Kravitz was entitled to 15% of the revenue generated all sources
12
applicable to Kravitz.
13
15.
Beginning on the date Kravitz started using the Account and at all times thereafter,
14
PhoneDog never controlled the Account and PhoneDog never informed Kravitz that it believed the
15
Account was PhoneDog’s property. Kravitz would not have used the Account if PhoneDog had told
16
him that he would be required to return it after he left the company. After Kravitz began using the
17
Account, PhoneDog did not create a single one of the tweets from the Account—Kravitz generated
18
all of them. At all times, the identity of the Account’s followers was public information accessible
19
to PhoneDog and anyone else with access to Twitter. All of Kravitz’s tweets were publicly available
20
as well.
21
16.
Pursuant to Twitter’s Terms of Service (“Terms”), a Twitter account is not personal
22
or intellectual property that belongs to Twitter users. Rather, Twitter agrees to offer users a set of
23
services which include access to and use of Twitter’s websites (the “Services”). Each user’s right to
24
use the Services is conditioned on acceptance and compliance with Twitter’s Terms. The Terms
25
provide that “[a]ll right, title, and interest in and to the Service (excluding Content provided by
26
users) are and will remain the exclusive property of Twitter and its licensors.” Thus, the Account
27
does not belong to either Kravitz or PhoneDog. Rather, under the Terms, Kravitz, who for more
28
FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
14
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-03474 (MEJ)
1
than three years has been the exclusive user of the Account and rightful holder of the password, is
2
the individual with the right to use the Services under the Terms.
3
17.
Twitter has the exclusive right to “terminate users or reclaim usernames.” All of the
4
Services belong to Twitter. Under the Twitter Rules, users of the Services are strictly prohibited
5
from copying, selling, or trading the Services. Under the Terms, a user is responsible for
6
safeguarding the password that they use to access the Services. In addition, Twitter users are strictly
7
prohibited from making a profit off their accounts without specific permission from Twitter to do so
8
and are further prohibited from selling their accounts.
9
10
Use of the Account by Kravitz
18.
Many people found Kravitz’s tweets to be useful and interesting. Kravitz’s tweets
11
concerning his personal opinions and views were particularly popular. When Kravitz began using
12
the Account, it did not have many followers. However, by October 2010, due to Kravitz’s efforts at
13
creating interesting tweets, the number of followers of the Account had increased substantially—to
14
approximately 17,000.
15
19.
In October 2010, Kravitz elected to resign from PhoneDog. Immediately after his
16
resignation, Kravitz changed the handle of the Account from @PhoneDog_Noah to @noahkravitz.
17
On October 14, 2010 Tom Klein expressly represented to Kravitz that he consented to Kravitz
18
changing the Twitter handle. When a Twitter handle changes, the users that followed the account
19
under its previous handle automatically continue following the account on its new handle. Kravitz
20
informed PhoneDog prior to his resignation that he would be changing the Account’s handle.
21
20.
Once Kravitz announced his resignation, PhoneDog, through its founder Tom Klein,
22
provided Kravitz with oral assurances that he could retain the Account permanently after his
23
separation from the company. PhoneDog again consented to Kravitz retaining the Account with a
24
new handle when, on October 18, 2010, PhoneDog announced Kravitz’s resignation on its website.
25
PhoneDog had complete control over this “Farewell Post” in which Kravitz stated that he did not
26
know what job he would take next, but “[w]hatever I wind up doing, you can follow it on my little
27
blog at http://nk126.com and on twitter at @noahkravitz.” Moreover, after his resignation
28
PhoneDog uploaded a video to its YouTube channel that advertised Kravitz’s new handle
FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
15
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-03474 (MEJ)
1
@noahkravitz. Kravitz relied on PhoneDog’s previous assurances that he would continue to have
2
the exclusive right to use the Account.
3
21.
Following his resignation, PhoneDog continued to request that Kravitz use his
4
Account to send out tweets promoting PhoneDog. Kravitz did so for approximately two months.
5
For example, on December 10, 2010, PhoneDog sent Kravitz an email asking him to tweet about a
6
promotional contest on PhoneDog’s website. On December 15, 2010, PhoneDog asked Kravitz to
7
tweet about another contest PhoneDog was operating. During this time, the identity of the
8
Account’s followers was known to PhoneDog. PhoneDog gave its consent to the change in handle
9
and Kravitz’s ongoing use of the Account under the new handle @noahkravitz.
10
22.
Beginning in December 2010 PhoneDog refused to provide Kravitz with the 15%
11
share of gross revenue due to him under the Commission Agreement. As PhoneDog had refused to
12
uphold its contractual obligations, Kravitz ceased tweeting on PhoneDog’s behalf. Since his
13
resignation, Kravitz’s Twitter following has increased to over 24,000 followers. He has sent almost
14
27,000 tweets.
15
16
PhoneDog’s Amended Complaint
23.
In its Amended Complaint, PhoneDog asserts that it requested that Kravitz maintain
17
the Account for use in the scope of the services he performed for PhoneDog and that the password to
18
the Account is a trade secret that belongs to PhoneDog. Amended Complaint ¶ 12. PhoneDog
19
claims that it gave Kravitz use of the Account and that he accessed the Account using PhoneDog’s
20
trade secrets. Amended Complaint ¶ 18.
21
24.
PhoneDog further states that following Kravitz’s resignation he was asked to
22
relinquish actual use of the Account but he refused. Amended Complaint ¶ 20. PhoneDog asserts
23
that through his ongoing use of the Account, Kravitz has discredited and disparaged PhoneDog and
24
has interfered with PhoneDog’s economic relationships. Amended Complaint ¶¶ 23-24. PhoneDog
25
also claims that it is the true owner of the Account. Amended Complaint ¶ 48.
26
25.
Kravitz has all the right to use the Services and the Account, subject to the interests
27
retained by Twitter. Kravitz was not asked to relinquish use of the Account until nine months after
28
he left PhoneDog. In fact, PhoneDog only asserted ownership over the Account after Kravitz filed
FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
16
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-03474 (MEJ)
1
the State Court Litigation. Kravitz has not interfered with any of PhoneDog’s relationships, nor has
2
he discredited or disparaged PhoneDog. The allegations against Kravitz of moral turpitude made in
3
PhoneDog’s Amended Complaint and on its website have damaged his reputation and harmed his
4
economic relationships.
5
26.
Consequently, there is an actual case and controversy between the parties over the
6
Account and related matters, including any damages attendant to Kravitz’s ongoing use of the
7
Account.
8
COUNT ONE
9
Declaratory Judgment that—Subject to the Rights Retained by Twitter—Kravitz has all
10
Rights to and Interest in the Services
11
27.
12
his Counterclaims.
13
28.
14
Kravitz restates and incorporates by reference his allegations in paragraphs 1-26 of
An actual case or controversy exists between Kravitz and PhoneDog as to who owns
the Account.
15
29.
A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate to resolve this dispute.
16
30.
Since Kravitz began using the Account, he has maintained exclusive possession and
17
control over it. Kravitz only began using the Account because he believed that the Account was his
18
to use permanently and that he had all rights to and interest in the Services. After he began using the
19
Account, PhoneDog never expressed to Kravitz that it believed PhoneDog retained any right, title or
20
interest in the Account or the Services. Following Kravitz’s resignation, PhoneDog agreed that
21
Kravitz had all rights to and interest in the Services subject to the rights retained by Twitter. Months
22
after his resignation from PhoneDog, the company continued to request that Kravitz tweet on its
23
behalf using the Account. PhoneDog thereby acquiesced to Kravitz’s ownership of the Services and
24
ratified his decision to retain the Account.
25
31.
Industry precedent establishes that—absent a specific agreement to the contrary—an
26
employer does not own any employee’s Twitter account. An employer cannot prevent an employee
27
from changing the handle of a Twitter account. There is no agreement between Kravitz and
28
PhoneDog that PhoneDog owns the Account or has the right to use the Account. In fact, PhoneDog
FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
17
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-03474 (MEJ)
1
previously agreed with Kravitz on a number of occasions that Kravitz would have permanent and
2
exclusive use of the Account.
3
WHEREFORE, Kravitz prays for judgment as set forth below.
4
COUNT TWO
5
Promissory Estoppel
6
32.
7
his Counterclaims.
8
33.
9
Kravitz restates and incorporates by reference his allegations in paragraphs 1-26 of
When Kravitz began using the Account in January 2009, Kravitz believed that he
would be permitted to retain the Account going forward regardless of whether he continued to
10
contribute to PhoneDog. Between January 2009 and October 2010, PhoneDog never told Kravitz
11
that it believed the Account belonged to PhoneDog. Klein and PhoneDog benefitted from these
12
statements because they induced Kravitz to use the Account and thereby drive traffic to PhoneDog’s
13
websites which increased PhoneDog’s profits. In October 2010, PhoneDog’s CEO, Tom Klein
14
informed Kravitz that it had no objection to him retaining the Account after Kravitz left the
15
company. Klein and PhoneDog benefited from this promise because it resulted in Kravitz
16
continuing to tweet on PhoneDog’s behalf. Kravitz reasonably believed these statements and
17
justifiably relied on them.
18
34.
PhoneDog and Klein have since reneged on the promises they made to Kravitz.
19
35.
Kravitz relied on these statements to his detriment. Before January 2009, Kravitz
20
maintained a Twitter account under the handle @kravykrav. Kravitz ceased using this handle and
21
began using the Account based on the understanding that he would have the permanent and
22
exclusive right to use the Account. Between January 2009 and October 2010, under the belief that
23
the Account was his to use permanently, Kravitz spent substantial time and effort increasing the
24
Account’s following and prominence. Since his resignation, Kravitz has sent thousands of tweets
25
and has increased his Twitter following by more than 7,000, or 40%. If the Account is returned to
26
PhoneDog, Kravitz will lose the following that he spent time and effort building. This loss can only
27
be avoided if PhoneDog’s promise to Kravitz that he could retain the Account is enforced.
28
FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
18
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-03474 (MEJ)
1
2
3
36.
Kravitz has suffered harm to his reputation, his economic relationships in the
technology industry as well as with various media outlets due to his detrimental reliance.
WHEREFORE, Kravitz prays for judgment as set forth below.
4
COUNT THREE
5
False Promise (Fraud)
6
37.
7
his Counterclaims.
8
38.
9
10
Kravitz restates and incorporates by reference his allegations in paragraphs 1-26 of
To the extent PhoneDog alleges the Account belongs to it and that it should recover
the Account and access to the Services, Phone Dog made a false and fraudulent promise to Kravitz.
39.
PhoneDog promised Kravitz that the Account was his to keep permanently. It made
11
this promise on a number of occasions. First, at all times while he was a contributor to its websites,
12
PhoneDog led Kravitz to believe that it asserted no ownership over the Account or the Services and
13
that Kravitz had the permanent and exclusive right to use the Account and the Services. Second,
14
after he resigned from the company, PhoneDog uploaded Kravitz’s Farewell Post advertising the
15
new Twitter handle for the Account @noahkravitz pursuant to which Kravitz would continue
16
tweeting. Third, PhoneDog asked Kravitz to tweet on its behalf in December 2010 using the
17
Account which PhoneDog was aware had a new Twitter handle. Fourth, after Kravitz announced his
18
resignation, Tom Klein specifically informed Kravitz that he could permanently retain the Account
19
and use of the Services.
20
40.
PhoneDog knew that these promises were false at the time it made them and intended
21
the promises to induce reliance by Kravitz who PhoneDog hoped would continue to tweet on its
22
behalf and drive traffic to its website. Kravitz reasonably believed these promises to be true. The
23
promises did induce reliance because Kravitz abandoned his former Twitter account—
24
@kravykrav—and began using the Account. Moreover, Kravitz expended significant effort and
25
time in creating tweets between October 2010 (when he resigned from PhoneDog) and the present.
26
Kravitz engaged in similar efforts while he was a contributor to PhoneDog. Through these efforts,
27
Kravitz has maintained and expanded his Twitter following—increasing the number of individuals
28
following him by almost 40%. Kravitz will lose this following if the Account is returned to
FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
19
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-03474 (MEJ)
1
PhoneDog. At a minimum, PhoneDog’s false promises will interfere with Kravitz’s efforts to
2
communicate with thousands of Twitter followers that began following his Account after he resigned
3
from PhoneDog and thereby have no connection to PhoneDog or the Account when its handle was
4
@PhoneDog_Noah.
5
WHEREFORE, Kravitz prays for judgment as set forth below.
6
COUNT FOUR
7
Negligent Misrepresentation
8
41.
Kravitz restates and incorporates by reference his allegations in paragraphs 1-26 of
9
his Counterclaims.
10
42.
In January 2009, Kravitz was under the belief that if he began using the Account, the
11
Account and the Services were his to continue using permanently. PhoneDog never informed him
12
otherwise. PhoneDog never expressed the belief that it possessed any right or interest in the
13
Account or the Followers. After he resigned from PhoneDog, the company represented to Kravitz
14
that he could continue to use the Account and the Services under the handle @noahkravitz. At this
15
time, PhoneDog again represented that it possessed no right or interest in the Account or the
16
Followers. At the time that PhoneDog made these representations, it had no reasonable grounds for
17
believing that they were true.
18
19
20
43.
PhoneDog intended that Kravitz rely on these misrepresentations so that Kravitz
would use the Account, drive traffic to PhoneDog’s website and tweet promotions on its behalf.
44.
Kravitz has suffered harm to his reputation as a result of Phone Dog’s
21
misrepresentations and material omissions. Kravitz abandoned his former Twitter account—
22
@kravykrav—and started to use the Account only because PhoneDog failed to tell him that it would
23
subsequently assert ownership over the Account. Kravitz also put significant time and effort into
24
building a following for the Account from January 2009 to the present because he believed
25
PhoneDog would not assert ownership over the Account. In addition, Kravitz continued to use the
26
Account between November 2010 and July 2011, in part, because PhoneDog did not ask him to
27
relinquish the Account.
28
WHEREFORE, Kravitz prays for judgment as set forth below.
FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
20
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-03474 (MEJ)
1
COUNT FIVE
2
Unauthorized Use of Likeness in Violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 3344 and Cal. Bus. & Prof.
3
Code § 17200 et seq.
4
45.
Kravitz restates and incorporates by reference his allegations in paragraphs 1-26 of
5
his Counterclaims.
6
46.
Since Kravitz’s departure, PhoneDog has continued to employ his likeness to promote
7
its website. PhoneDog’s use of Kravitz’s likeness is commercial in character because it drives
8
additional traffic to www.phonedog.com. Kravitz has not consented to PhoneDog’s use of his
9
likeness which includes images of Kravitz appearing on television programs and goes far beyond
10
blog posts and videos that Kravitz created for PhoneDog. PhoneDog’s use of Kravitz’s likeness as it
11
appears in these videos is unauthorized because Kravitz did not provide PhoneDog with consent to
12
use his likeness to promote its website in this manner. Moreover, any implied consent that Kravitz
13
may previously have given to PhoneDog to use his likeness is now invalid because PhoneDog
14
breached the Commission Agreement it reached with Kravitz in June 2008.
15
47.
Kravitz has requested that PhoneDog cease using his likeness but PhoneDog has
16
refused. By using Kravitz’s likeness, PhoneDog has driven additional traffic to its websites and
17
otherwise benefitted commercially.
18
48.
Kravitz’s reputation has been harmed due to this unauthorized use, and Kravitz has
19
lost money in the form of diminished business opportunities. PhoneDog’s foregoing conduct is in
20
violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 3344 and also constitutes unlawful, fraudulent, and unfair conduct in
21
violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.
22
WHEREFORE, Kravitz prays for judgment as set forth below.
23
COUNT SIX
24
Attempt to Impose and/or Enforce an Illegal Contract Term in Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof.
25
Code § 16600 et seq. and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.
26
49.
Kravitz restates and incorporates by reference his allegations in paragraphs 1-26 of
27
his Counterclaims.
28
FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
21
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-03474 (MEJ)
1
50.
PhoneDog expressly consented to Kravitz’s changing the Twitter handle and to
2
Kravitz’s ongoing use of the Account under the new handle @noahkravitz. After Kravitz resigned
3
from PhoneDog and began a full-time position at TechnoBuffalo, a company that offers some
4
services competing with those of PhoneDog, PhoneDog represented to Kravitz that it did not consent
5
to Kravitz publishing mobile content while he was receiving compensation from PhoneDog,
6
claiming that such action was barred by non-compete protocol, though the parties had no such
7
agreement. PhoneDog subsequently cancelled a check for amounts due to Kravitz under the
8
Commission Agreement and sued Kravitz for ownership of the Twitter handle.
9
51.
Kravitz has lost money in the form of commissions forfeited based on the alleged
10
violation of the aforementioned covenant not to compete, as well as substantial legal fees expended
11
when he was forced to initial legal action to recover the funds due to him (which he has not
12
recovered to date) and was forced to defend this action.
13
52.
PhoneDog’s foregoing conduct in attempting to impose and/or enforce a covenant not
14
to compete in violation of California Business & Professions Code § 16600 et seq. constitutes
15
unlawful, fraudulent and unfair conduct in violation of California Business & Professions Code §
16
17200 et seq.
17
WHEREFORE, Kravitz prays for judgment as set forth below.
18
19
20
21
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, having fully responded to PhoneDog’s Amended Complaint and asserted his
Counterclaims against PhoneDog, Kravitz prays for judgment as follows:
a.
22
23
24
A judgment dismissing PhoneDog’s Amended Complaint against Kravitz with
prejudice;
b.
A judgment in favor of Kravitz on his Counterclaims, specifically:
1.
For the First Counterclaim for a Declaratory Judgment, Kravitz prays
25
for a declaration that the right to use the Account and the Services belongs to Kravitz
26
subject to whatever rights to the Account and the Services that Twitter has reserved to
27
itself. In the event that PhoneDog is judged to be the owner of the Account, then
28
Kravitz requests quantum meruit damages in an amount to be proved to compensate
FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
22
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-03474 (MEJ)
1
him for his time and effort he spent building a Twitter following under the false
2
pretense that Kravitz had the permanent and exclusive right to use the Account;
3
2.
For the Second Counterclaim for Promissory Estoppel, Kravitz prays
4
for enforcement of PhoneDog’s promise that the Account and the Services are his to
5
keep permanently, Kravitz further requests damages in an amount to be proved;
6
3.
For the Third Counterclaim for False Promise, Kravitz prays for
7
enforcement of PhoneDog’s promise that the Account and the Services are his to keep
8
permanently, Kravitz further requests damages in an amount to be proved;
9
4.
For the Fourth Counterclaim for Negligent Misrepresentation, Kravitz
10
prays for enforcement of PhoneDog’s promise that the Account and the Services are
11
his to keep permanently, Kravitz further requests damages in an amount to be proved;
12
5.
For the Fifth Counterclaim for Unauthorized Use of Likeness in
13
Violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 3344 and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, Kravitz
14
prays for a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and/or permanent
15
injunction enjoining PhoneDog from using Kravitz’s likeness on the PhoneDog
16
website, and for restitution in an amount to be proved.
17
6.
For the Sixth Counterclaim for Attempting to Impose and/or Enforce
18
an Illegal Contract Term in Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600 and Cal.
19
Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, Kravitz prays for restitution of his lost commissions and
20
legal fees expended in the California Superior Court action and this action.
21
c.
22
23
estoppel, and/or waiver;
d.
24
25
A declaration that PhoneDog’s claims are barred by the doctrines of laches, equitable
An award to Kravitz of his reasonable costs and expenses of litigation, including
expert witness and attorneys’ fees;
e.
Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
26
27
28
FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
23
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-03474 (MEJ)
1
DATED: April 30, 2012
2
By:
3
4
5
6
7
/s/ Margaret A. Keane
MARGARET A. KEANE (SBN 255378)
mkeane@dl.com
DEWEY & LeBOEUF LLP
Post Montgomery Center
One Montgomery Street, Suite 2500
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel: (415) 951-1100
Fax: (415) 951-1180
8
and
9
12
CARY KLETTER
SALLY TRUNG NGUYEN
KLETTER LAW FIRM
1900 S. Norfolk Street, Suite 350
San Mateo, CA 94403
Telephone: (415) 434-3400
13
Attorneys for Defendant Noah Kravitz
10
11
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
US1 32404079.2
FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
24
CASE NO. 3:11-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?