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)

Download PDF
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?