Heller v. Adobe Systems, Inc.

Filing 48

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; DISMISSING CASE. Re: Dkt. No. 29 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/25/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DAVID HELLER, Plaintiff, United States District Court Northern District of California 11 v. 12 13 ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. 14 Case No. 15-cv-04658 NC ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; DISMISSING CASE Re: Dkt. No. 29 15 Plaintiff David Heller moves to file a first amended complaint after this Court 16 17 granted defendant Adobe Systems’ motion to dismiss the original complaint with leave to 18 amend. Adobe opposes the motion, arguing that the proposed first amended complaint 19 suffers from the same deficiencies as the original complaint. In his first amended complaint, Heller alleges that he provided valuable information 20 21 to Adobe about alleged copyright infringers, in exchange for Adobe’s promise to 22 compensate him. When Adobe failed to compensate Heller, Heller brought this lawsuit on 23 the basis of breach of contract, quantum meruit, and misrepresentation. The Court agrees with Adobe that Heller’s allegations of an agreement, promise, or 24 25 representation that Adobe would compensate Heller for his work and information are 26 vague and do not state a plausible claim for relief. Thus, the Court DENIES Heller’s 27 motion to amend the complaint. 28 / Case No. 15-cv-04658 NC 1 I. 2 LEGAL STANDARD Generally, a Court must grant leave to amend freely. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). 3 However, the Ninth Circuit has set out four factors for the Court to consider when granting 4 leave to amend: (1) undue delay; (2) bad faith; (3) prejudice to the opponent; and/or (4) 5 futility of the proposed amendment. Loehr v. Ventura County Community College 6 District, 743 F.2d 1310, 1319 (9th Cir. 1984) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 7 (1962)). Denial of a motion to amend a complaint is proper only when the amendment 8 would be clearly frivolous or unduly prejudicial, would cause undue delay, or if a finding 9 of bad faith is made. United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers, and Allied Trades No. 40 v. 10 Insurance Corp. of America, 919 F.2d 1398, 1402 (9th Cir.1990). United States District Court Northern District of California 11 In Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., the Ninth Circuit determined 12 that the district court properly denied leave to amend because the plaintiff’s “legal basis for 13 a cause of action is tenuous, [so] futility supports the refusal to grant leave to amend.” 194 14 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 1999)(citing Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 15 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990)). In addition, a Court may also consider whether the plaintiff 16 has previously amended his complaint. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 17 186 n.3 (9th Cir.1987). “Where a court has already provided the plaintiff one or more 18 opportunities to amend her complaint, its discretion over further amendments is 19 particularly broad.” Dauth v. Convenience Retailers, LLC, 13-cv-047 MEJ, 2013 WL 20 4225587, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2013). 21 II. 22 DISCUSSION In the Court’s prior order dismissing Heller’s complaint, the Court set forth the 23 legal basis for each of Heller’s claims and identified the deficiencies in Heller’s 24 allegations. The proposed first amended complaint is nearly identical to the original 25 complaint, except that it specifies that Adobe allegedly promised Heller physical 26 protection from the copyright infringers, a house, money for day-to-day expenses, and a 27 job. The Court addresses each cause of action in turn. 28 Case No. 15-cv-04658 NC 2 1 A. Breach of Contract Under California law, a breach of contract claim requires plaintiff to prove “the 2 3 existence of contract, plaintiff’s performance of that contract or excuse for failure to 4 perform, defendant’s breach, and damage to plaintiff resulting therefrom.” McKell v. 5 Washington Mut., Inc., 142 Cal. App. 4th 1457, 1489 (2006) (citing 4 Witkin, Cal. 6 Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Pleading, § 476 at 570). 7 Adobe argues that Heller has not alleged that a contract exists because there is no 8 written document, and Heller alleges that Adobe promised to pay him orally, but did not 9 specify what amount. “Contract formation requires mutual consent, which cannot exist unless the parties agree upon the same thing in the same sense.” Bustamante v. Intuit, Inc., 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 141 Cal. App. 4th 199, 208 (2006); Mulato v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 76 F. Supp. 3d 929, 12 951 (N.D. Cal. 2014). “To be enforceable, a promise must be definite enough that a court 13 can determine the scope of the duty[,] and the limits of performance must be sufficiently 14 defined to provide a rational basis for the assessment of damages.” Bustamante, 141 Cal. 15 App. 4th at 209; Facebook, Inc. v. Pac. Nw. Software, Inc., 640 F.3d 1034, 1038 (9th Cir. 16 2011). 17 The Court previously found that “the complaint does not set forth when Heller was 18 supposed to release this information, to whom, and when Adobe should have paid him, or 19 how much.” Dkt. No. 27 at 4. Heller’s new allegations that Adobe promised him 20 protection, a house, money, and a job are still too vague for a Court to determine the scope 21 of the duty Adobe owed to Heller. Heller has twice attempted to articulate the exact 22 bargain he struck with Adobe and twice failed to identify any specific terms of a contract 23 between the parties. Thus, the Court concludes that amendment would be futile, as Heller 24 cannot allege with specificity the scope of the contractual duty he claims. 25 B. Quantum Meruit 26 A claim for quantum meruit requires “(1) that the plaintiff performed certain 27 services for the defendant, (2) their reasonable value, (3) that they were rendered at 28 defendant’s request, and (4) that they are unpaid.” Cedars Sinai Medical Center v. MidCase No. 15-cv-04658 NC 3 1 West National Life Insurance Co., 118 F. Supp. 2d 1002, 1013 (C.D. Cal. 2000). Damages 2 are determined by the “reasonable value of beneficial services.” Maglica v. Maglica, 66 3 Cal. App. 4th 442, 450 (1998). 4 The Court previously dismissed this claim because “Heller’s explanation of what 5 services he performed and their reasonable value are conclusory and vague in the 6 complaint.” Dkt. No. 27 at 5. The first amended complaint provides no further detail as to 7 which services Heller performed for Adobe or their reasonable value. Heller’s allegations 8 are vague assertions that Adobe asked him to do some further work, although it is unclear 9 what, and that Heller spent “dozens of hours on investigations.” FAC ¶ 18. The complaint fails to allege whether Heller’s additional investigation was rendered at defendant’s 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 request. The Court finds that amendment would be futile, as Heller cannot allege with 12 specificity the value of the services he rendered and that such services were rendered at 13 Adobe’s request. 14 15 C. Intentional and Negligent Misrepresentation To plead fraud or mistake under Rule 9(b), “a party must state with particularity the 16 circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Under California law, 17 the “indispensable elements of a fraud claim include a false representation, knowledge of 18 its falsity, intent to defraud, justifiable reliance, and damages.” Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. 19 USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1105 (9th Cir. 2003). “The complaint must specify such facts as the 20 times, dates, places, benefits received, and other details of the alleged fraudulent activity.” 21 Neubronner v. Milken, 6 F.3d 666, 672 (9th Cir. 1993)(citations omitted). 22 Under California law, to state a claim for negligent misrepresentation, the plaintiff 23 must allege: (1) a misrepresentation of a past or existing material fact; (2) without 24 reasonable ground for believing it to be true; (3) with intent to induce another’s reliance on 25 the misrepresentation; (4) ignorance of the truth and justifiable reliance on the 26 misrepresentation by the party to whom it was directed; and (5) resulting damage. 27 Hosseini v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 13-cv-02066 DMR, 2013 WL 4279632, at *7 28 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). In addition, Heller must allege the existence of a duty of care Case No. 15-cv-04658 NC 4 1 owed to him by Adobe. Ditto v. McCurdy, 510 F.3d 1070, 1078 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding 2 that negligent misrepresentation requires the same elements as negligence, including a duty 3 of care). 4 In the Court’s prior order, the Court found that Heller did not allege a duty of care, 5 a misrepresentation of material fact, Adobe’s knowledge that the representation was false, 6 or specific damages. The Court finds that the first amended complaint suffers from the 7 same deficiencies. 8 III. CONCLUSION 9 The Court finds that Heller’s proposed first amended complaint fails to fix the deficiencies identified by the Court in the original complaint. In addition, because Heller 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 has now twice been unable to allege sufficient facts, and these facts should be in Heller’s 12 possession as they are based on his personal experience, the Court concludes that further 13 amendment of the complaint would be futile. The Court DENIES Heller’s motion to 14 amend the complaint and DISMISSES the case. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: May 25, 2016 19 _____________________________________ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 15-cv-04658 NC 5

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?