William Silverstein v. Keynetics Inc. et al
Filing
33
ORDER to Submit Supplemental Briefing on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss 6 , 13 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 04/07/2016. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
WILLIAM SILVERSTEIN,
Case No. 16-cv-00684-DMR
Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
11
KEYNETICS INC., et al.,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Defendants.
ORDER TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING ON DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 6, 13
12
13
The court has reviewed the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants 418 Media LLC and
14
Lewis Howes (Docket No. 6, the “418 Media Defendants”) and specially appearing Defendants
15
Keynetics Inc. and Click Sales Inc. (Docket No. 13, the “Keynetics Defendants”), and Plaintiff’s
16
oppositions thereto (Docket Nos. 14, 25). In their motions, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s
17
claims are preempted by the federal CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 7701-7713. In support, the
18
418 Media Defendants cite Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 49 Cal. 4th 334, 346 (2010),
19
which discussed the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Gordon v. Virtumundo, 575 F.3d 1040, 1064 (9th
20
Cir. 2009), that “a state law requiring an e-mail’s ‘from’ field to include the name of the person or
21
entity who actually sent the e-mail or who hired the sender constitutes ‘a content or labeling
22
requirement’ that ‘is clearly subject to preemption.” Neither Plaintiff nor the Keynetics
23
Defendants cited Gordon in their briefs, and the 418 Media Defendants did not discuss Gordon at
24
length in their brief. For his part, Plaintiff relies on Balsam v. Trancos, 203 Cal. App. 4th 1083,
25
1098-1102 (2012), in his opposition brief, and cites it in his amended complaint, but none of the
26
Defendants cited or discussed Balsam in their briefs.
27
28
Therefore, by 12:00 p.m. on April 11, 2016, Plaintiff, the 418 Media Defendants, and the
Keynetics Defendants shall each file a brief that does not exceed four pages addressing the
1
applicability of Gordon and Balsam to the facts of this case, including their impact on the question
2
of whether federal law preempts some or all of Plaintiff’s claims.
3
S
ER
M. Ryu
H
9
10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
onna
Judge D
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
FO
RT
8
Donna M. Ryu
United States Magistrate Judge
LI
NO
7
R NIA
DERED
SO OR
______________________________________
IT IS
A
6
Dated: April 7, 2016
UNIT
ED
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
RT
U
O
4
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
N
D IS T IC T
R
OF
C
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?