Confluent, Inc. v. Slower, LLC
Filing
30
ORDER on 21 Motion to Dismiss. Amended Complaint due by 2/11/2025. Joint Case Management Statement due by 4/1/2025. Initial Case Management Conference set for 4/8/2025 at 09:30 AM. Signed by Judge Susan van Keulen on 1/28/2025. (svklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2025)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
CONFLUENT, INC.,
Plaintiff,
8
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
9
v.
10
SLOWER, LLC,
11
12
Case No. 24-cv-04447-SVK
Re: Dkt. No. 21
Defendant.
Plaintiff Confluent, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Confluent”) develops and sells subscriptions to
13
cloud services and software data streaming products. Dkt. 1 (Complaint) ¶ 1. Defendant Slower,
14
LLC (“Defendant” or “Slower”) entered into a Reseller Agreement and a Partner Agreement with
15
Confluent. Id. ¶¶ 11-20. Confluent filed this lawsuit on July 23, 2024. Id. The Complaint
16
contains five causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) intentional interference with prospective
17
economic advantage; (3) violation of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”); (4)
18
violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200; and (5) federal unfair competition
19
under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Id. All Parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a
20
magistrate judge. Dkt. 10, 19.
21
Now before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss the second, third, and fourth causes
22
of action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Dkt. 21.
23
Defendant’s motion to dismiss does not challenge the first or fifth causes of action in the
24
Complaint. Id. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss (Dkt. 25), and Defendant
25
filed a reply (Dkt. 26).
26
27
28
This matter is suitable for determination without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the
reasons that follow, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
1
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court must dismiss a complaint
2
if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In ruling on a motion to dismiss, courts
3
4
may consider only “the complaint, materials incorporated into the complaint by reference, and
matters of which the court may take judicial notice.” Metzler Inv. GmbH v. Corinthian Colls.,
5
Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008). In deciding whether the plaintiff has stated a claim, the
6
7
8
9
court must presume the plaintiff’s allegations are true and draw all reasonable inferences in the
plaintiff’s favor. Usher v. City of L.A., 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). However, the court is
not required to accept as true “allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of
fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir.
10
2008) (citation omitted).
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
To survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). This
“facial plausibility” standard requires the plaintiff to allege facts that add up to “more than a sheer
possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 668 (2009).
15
If a motion to dismiss is granted, the court must grant leave to amend unless it is clear that
16
the complaint’s deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon,
17
Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).
18
19
II.
DISCUSSION
There is little material dispute between the Parties regarding the required elements of each
20
challenged cause of action; their dispute instead centers on whether Plaintiff has adequately
21
pleaded those elements. See generally Dkt. 21, 25. Accordingly, to promote judicial efficiency
22
and provide useful guidance to the Parties, this order focuses primarily on the deficiencies in the
23
Complaint. Because it is not clear that these deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment, Plaintiff
24
is GRANTED LEAVE TO AMEND the Complaint.
25
26
27
28
A.
Second Cause of Action (Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic
Advantage)
Plaintiff’s second cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic
advantage is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND for the following reasons:
2
1
1.
The Complaint fails to adequately allege an independently wrongful act.
2
The Parties agree that an element of a claim for intentional interference with
3
prospective economic advantage is that the defendant engaged in an
4
“independently wrongful act.” See Dkt. 21 at 3; Dkt. 25 at 6. Confluent’s
5
interference claim is premised on the decision of “Customer C” to decline
6
to renew its Confluent subscription for the twelve-month period following
7
March 28, 2024. Dkt. 1 ¶ 47.
8
9
a.
10
intentionally coordinated with Competitor A to poach Customer C.”
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Confluent alleges on information and belief that “Slower
Dkt. 1 ¶ 49; see also id. ¶¶ 31-39. The Complaint also alleges that
12
Slower improperly disclosed Confluent’s confidential customer
13
information to “Competitor A,” which allowed Slower and
14
Competitor A “to work together to poach Confluent customers.”
15
Id. ¶¶ 37, 49. The Complaint fails to include sufficient factual
16
allegations regarding the mechanism by which Confluent alleges
17
Slower and Competitor A worked together to poach Customer C or
18
any other Confluent customer, or the way in which Slower “deal[t]
19
with third parties in a manner that was detrimental to Confluent.”
20
Id.
21
b.
22
The Complaint alleges that Slower sent various emails to Customers
A and B. Id. ¶¶ 31-35.1 The Complaint further alleges on
23
information and belief that “Slower sent the same or similar
24
misleading emails to other Confluent customers” including
25
Customer C. Id. ¶ 35. The Complaint does not adequately allege
26
27
28
Although the terminology in the Complaint is somewhat confusing, it appears that “Competitor
A” is a different entity than “Customer A.”
3
1
1
facts upon which Confluent’s “information and belief” that Slower
2
had misleading communications with Customer C is based.
3
2.
Defendant’s argument that the claim for intentional interference with
4
prospective economic advantage should be dismissed because it is
5
preempted by CUTSA is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to
6
Defendant’s ability to make that argument later in the case. “California
7
courts have ruled that CUTSA’s comprehensive structure and breadth
8
suggests a legislative intent to occupy the field, and that CUTSA preempts
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
common law claims that are based on the same nucleus of facts as the
misappropriation of trade secrets claim for relief.” NetApp., Inc. v. Nimble
Storage, Inc., 41 F. Supp. 3d 816, 839 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (citing K.C.
13
Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of Am. Tech. & Operations, Inc., 171 Cal.App.4th
14
939, 954–58, 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 247 (2009).” The test for whether a claim
15
overlaps with the CUTSA involves “a factual inquiry, one that examines the
16
conduct alleged in the claim.” NetApp, 41 F. Supp. 3d at 839 (citing K.C.
17
Multimedia, 171 Cal. App.3d at 958). “At the pleadings stage, the
18
supersession analysis asks whether, stripped of facts supporting trade secret
19
20
misappropriation, the remaining factual allegation can be reassembled to
independently support other causes of action.” Auris Health, Inc. v. Noah
21
Med. Corp., No.220cv08073-AMO, 2023 WL 7284126, at *8 (N.D. Cal.
22
23
24
25
Nov. 3, 2023). Because in this section and in section II.B. below the Court
is granting Confluent leave to amend its claims for intentional interference
with prospective economic advantage and for trade secret misappropriation
26
to allege necessary facts, it would be premature to conduct a preemption
27
analysis based on the deficient allegations of the present Complaint.
28
4
1
2
3.
3
Defendant’s motion to dismiss the second cause of action on grounds other
than those specified in the preceding paragraphs is DENIED.
4
5
6
7
8
9
B.
Third Cause of Action (CUTSA)
Plaintiff’s third cause of action under CUTSA is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND for the following reasons:
1.
The Parties agree that under appropriate circumstances, a customer list may
be entitled to trade secret protection under California law. Dkt. 21 at 4-5;
10
Dkt. 25 at 8-9. However, to state a claim for misappropriation of trade
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
secrets, the plaintiff must “describe the subject matter of the trade secret
with sufficient particularity to separate it from matters of general
knowledge in the trade or of special persons who are skilled in the trade,
15
and to permit the defendant to ascertain at least the boundaries within which
16
the secret lies.” Calsoft Labs, Inc. v. Panchumarthi, No. 19-CV-04398-NC,
17
2020 WL 512123, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2020) (quoting Alta Devices,
18
Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 343 F. Supp. 3d 868 881 (N.D. Cal. 2018)). The
19
Complaint in this case fails to do so in the following respects:
20
a.
The Complaint fails to specify the information that comprises the
21
“customer lists.” See Calsoft, 2020 WL 512123, at *7 (contrasting
22
insufficient description of customer list trade secret to cases in
23
which plaintiffs explained the contents of the customer lists, such as
24
names, addresses, telephone numbers, and details of
25
products/services purchased by customers).
26
b.
The allegations of the Complaint are conclusory in that they do not
27
provide any specifics regarding Confluent’s “extensive investment
28
of human and economic capital over a period of many years” to
5
1
develop the customer lists. See Dkt. 1 ¶ 52; see also CleanFish,
2
LLC v. Sims, No. 19-cv-03663-HSG, 2020 WL 1274991, at *10
3
(N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2020).
c.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
4
The allegations of the Complaint are also conclusory in that they do
5
not explain how the customer lists “derive value from not being
6
generally known to the public.” See Dkt. 1 ¶ 52. “Although the
7
standard to show that trade secrets derive independent economic
8
value is not a high standard’ … courts recognize that merely
9
reciting this element in a pleading is insufficient to state a claim for
10
trade secret misappropriation.” Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Chung, 462 F.
11
Supp. 3d 1024, 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (internal punctuation marks
12
and citation omitted).
13
14
C.
15
Plaintiff’s sole argument for dismissal the fourth cause of action under California Business
16
& Professions Code § 17200 is that the claim is preempted by CUTSA. Dkt. 21 at 10-11. For the
17
same reasons discuss in Section II.A.2. above, Defendant’s motion to dismiss the section 17200
18
claim on this ground DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Defendant’s ability to make that
19
argument later in the case, after Confluent amends its claim for trade secret misappropriation.
Fourth Cause of Action (Business & Professions Code § 17200)
20
21
22
23
24
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the second, third, and fourth causes of action is
GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
25
2. If Plaintiff wishes to attempt to address the deficiencies identified in this order, it
26
may file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) no later than February 11, 2025.
27
3. Defendant must file a response no later than fourteen (14) days after the FAC is
28
filed.
6
1
4. If Defendant responds by filing a motion to dismiss the FAC, the normal briefing
2
schedule of Civil Local Rule 7-3 will apply. The Court will inform the parties if a
3
hearing is necessary.
4
5. An Initial Case Management Conference will be held on April 8, 2025 at
5
9:30 a.m., with a Joint Case Management Statement due on April 1, 2025.
6
SO ORDERED.
7
Dated: January 28, 2025
8
9
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
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?