Hard 2 Find Accessories, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al
Filing
33
ORDER granting dft Apple's 26 Motion to Dismiss by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
6
7
8
9
HARD 2 FIND ACCESSORIES, INC.,
10
11
Plaintiff,
v.
12
13
14
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and APPLE, INC., a
California corporation,
Defendants.
15
16
I.
)
) CASE NO. C14-0950 RSM
)
)
) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
) APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS
)
)
)
)
)
INTRODUCTION
17
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Apple, Inc’s (“Apple”) Motion to
18
19
Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Dkt. #26. Defendant argues that
20
Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed because it fails to allege facts sufficient to support
21
any of the alleged causes of action against it. Defendant further argues that all causes of
22
action against it are foreclosed by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. Id. Plaintiff, Hard 2 Find
23
Accessories, Inc. (“H2F”), responds that it has pled sufficient facts to meet the appropriate
24
25
notice pleading standard, and that Apple cannot rely on the Noerr-Pennington doctrine in this
26
case, and requests that the Court deny Defendant’s motion. Dkt. #29. For the reasons set
27
forth below, the Court disagrees with Plaintiff and GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
28
ORDER
PAGE - 1
II.
1
BACKGROUND
2
The relevant background of this matter has been previously set forth in this Court’s
3
Order granting Amazon’s motion to dismiss, and is incorporated by reference herein. Dkt. #32.
4
III.
DISCUSSION
5
A. Standard of Review
6
7
On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8
12(b)(6), all allegations of material fact must be accepted as true and construed in the light
9
most favorable to the nonmoving party. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38
10
(9th Cir. 1996). However, the court is not required to accept as true a “legal conclusion
11
couched as a factual allegation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
12
13
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The Complaint “must contain sufficient factual
14
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 678. This
15
requirement is met when the plaintiff “pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
16
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Absent facial
17
18
plausibility, Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
19
The Court generally may not consider material beyond the pleadings in ruling on a
20
motion to dismiss. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001). However,
21
where documents are referenced extensively in the Complaint, form the basis of Plaintiff’s
22
claim, or are subject to judicial notice, the Court may consider those documents in the context
23
24
of a motion to dismiss. United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908-09 (9th Cir. 2003). The
25
Court may take judicial notice of facts not reasonably subject to dispute because they are
26
generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction or can be accurately and readily
27
determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. FRE 201(b).
28
ORDER
PAGE - 2
1
Apple has requested that the Court take judicial notice of five exhibits. Dkt. #27.
2
Plaintiff does not appear to object to this Court taking notice of three Trademark registrations.
3
See Dkts. #27, Exs. 3-5 and #30. Accordingly, the Court has taken judicial notice of and
4
considers herein those registrations. However, Plaintiff does object to this Court taking notice
5
of two archived web pages, asserting that they are inherently unreliable and in dispute. See
6
7
8
9
10
Dkts. #27, Ex. 1 and 2 and #30. The Court does not rely on those web pages in its decision in
this case, and therefore declines to take judicial notice thereof.
B. Plaintiff’s Complaint
Plaintiff has alleged five causes of action against Apple, including: violations of state
11
and federal anti-trust statutes (Dkt. #1 at ¶ ¶ 97-109); tortious interference with
12
13
business/contractual expectancy (Dkt. #1 at ¶ ¶ 117-125); unjust enrichment (Dkt. #1 at ¶ ¶
14
149-151); violation of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”) (Dkt. #1 at 152-158);
15
and defamation (Dkt. #1 at ¶ ¶ 159-167). The Court finds that Apple is immune from suit on
16
all of these claims.
17
18
1. Noerr-Pennington Doctrine
19
Plaintiff’s claims against Apple are predicated on a single infringement notice that
20
Apple sent to Amazon in June of 2013. See Dkt. #1. Apple asserts immunity as to this notice
21
under a doctrine first recognized in two antitrust cases, E. R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr
22
Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127, 81 S. Ct. 523, 5 L. Ed. 2d 464 (1961), and United Mine
23
24
Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657, 85 S. Ct. 1585, 14 L. Ed. 2d 626 (1965), which is now
25
generally known as the Noerr-Penington doctrine. Although the immunity recognized in these
26
two suits was premised on both the Sherman Act and the First Amendment right to petition,
27
Cardtoons, L. C. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass’n, 208 F.3d 885, 890 (10th Cir. 2000),
28
ORDER
PAGE - 3
1
subsequent cases have also applied the doctrine outside of the antitrust context. See Theme
2
Promotions, Inc. v. News Am. Mktg. FSI, 546 F.3d 991, 1007 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding “that the
3
Noerr-Pennington doctrine applies to Theme’s state law tortious interference with prospective
4
economic advantage claims”); Sosa v. DIRECTV, Inc., 437 F.3d 923, 929 (9th Cir. 2006) (“The
5
Noerr-Pennington doctrine derives from the First Amendment’s guarantee of ‘the right of the
6
7
8
9
10
people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’”).
The Noerr-Pennington doctrine insulates from liability “petitioning conduct.” Theme,
546 F.3d at 1006.
Petitioning conduct includes the filing of a “reasonably based but
unsuccessful lawsuit,” Sosa, 437 F.3d at 930, as well as conduct “incidental to a lawsuit,
11
including a pre-suit demand letter,” so long as it does not fall into the realm of “sham
12
13
litigation.” Theme, 546 F.3d at 1007. The Ninth Circuit has also recognized that claims arising
14
from pre-suit cease-and-desist letters sent by one party to the other may be subject to immunity
15
under the Noer-Pennington doctrine. Rock River Communs., Inc. v. Universal Music Group,
16
Inc., 745 F.3d 343, 351 (9th Cir. 2014). Likewise, this Court has extended the doctrine to
17
18
claims arising out of a cease-and-desist letter to a third-party distributor demanding that the
19
distributor stop selling certain allegedly infringing items, similar to the situation in the instant
20
matter. See Modular Arts, Inc. v. Interlam Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51225, at 8-9 (W.D.
21
Wash. July 13, 2007). Based on the reasoning in these referenced cases, the Court agrees that
22
Apple has immunity from suit in this matter.
23
24
To defeat immunity under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, the non-moving party must
25
show that the moving party’s efforts to protect its legal rights were a “sham.” A “sham”
26
lawsuit is one where the suit is both “objectively baseless in the sense that no reasonable
27
litigant could realistically expect success on the merits” and “an attempt to interfere directly
28
ORDER
PAGE - 4
1
with the business relationship of a competitor through the use of the governmental process —
2
as opposed to the outcome of that process.” Rock River Communs., 745 F.3d at 351-52
3
(citations omitted). In conclusory manner, H2F argues that it has pleaded facts sufficient to
4
establish a “sham” defense to Apple’s Noerr-Pennington immunity. Dkt. #29 at 11. The Court
5
disagrees. A review of the Complaint reveals that H2F has failed to allege sufficient facts to
6
7
show that Apple’s letter was “objectively baseless” and that Apple’s “motive in bringing it was
8
unlawful.” Modular Arts, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51225(citation omitted). As a result,
9
H2F has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in light of Apple’s Noerr-
10
Pennington immunity.
11
2. Plaintiff’s Anti-Trust Claims Against Apple
12
13
Although the Court has determined that Apple is immune from suit on all of H2F’s
14
claims against it, the Court also wishes to acknowledge that Plaintiff’s anti-trust claim against
15
Apple fails for other reasons, consistent with this Court’s prior Order granting dismissal of
16
Plaintiff’s anti-trust claim against Amazon. See Dkt. #32. Plaintiff’s Cause of Action Three
17
18
alleges violations of state and federal antitrust laws against Amazon and Apple collectively.
19
Dkt. #1 at ¶ ¶ 97-109. Essentially, this claim alleges that Apple and Amazon have conspired to
20
“shutter” Apple’s competitors. Specifically, H2F alleges that Apple and Amazon have agreed
21
to a scheme whereby Apple monitors sellers who sell items at an “aggressive price point,” then
22
report such sellers to Amazon, which in turn shuts down the seller. Then, Apple allegedly
23
24
stalls its resolution of the complaint with the seller in order to allow Amazon to “conjure up” an
25
after-the-fact reason for closing the seller’s account. Dkt. #1 at ¶ 103. Alternatively, Plaintiff
26
alleges that Amazon and Apple are engaged in horizontal price fixing because they both sell the
27
same iPad accessories as H2F. Dkt. #1 at ¶ ¶ 108-109.
28
ORDER
PAGE - 5
1
As the Court previously determined, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts to support either
2
basis for the claim. In fact, a review of Plaintiff’s alleged facts reveals no allegations of any
3
relationship between Apple and Amazon, other than Apple communicated with Amazon
4
regarding the complaint of counterfeit iPad covers. See Dkt. #1 at ¶ ¶ 8-86. There are no facts
5
supporting any conspiracy or collusion, or even the inference of any conspiracy or collusion
6
7
between the two, for any purpose. Nor are there any facts alleged to support even an inference
8
that the two entities conspired to restrain trade among States within the United States or with
9
foreign countries. See Brantley v. NBC Universal, Inc., 675 F.3d 1192, 1197 (9th Cir. 2012)
10
(setting forth required elements of a Sherman Act antitrust claim).
Therefore, Plaintiff’s
11
antitrust claim is wholly without factual support, and must be dismissed against Apple.
12
13
C. Leave to Amend
14
Ordinarily, leave to amend a Complaint should be freely given following an order of
15
dismissal, “unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured
16
by amendment.” Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); see also DeSoto v.
17
18
Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d 655, 658 (9th Cir. 1992) (“A district court does not err in
19
denying leave to amend where the amendment would be futile.” (citing Reddy v. Litton Indus.,
20
Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990)). Here, the Court concludes that granting leave to
21
amend would be futile. The Court can conceive of no possible cure for the deficiencies in
22
Plaintiff’s Complaint, particularly given the immunity enjoyed by Apple as discussed above.
23
IV.
24
25
26
CONCLUSION
Having reviewed the relevant pleadings, the declarations and exhibits attached thereto,
and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby ORDERS:
27
28
ORDER
PAGE - 6
1
1) Defendant’s request for judicial notice (Dkt. #27) is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART, as noted above.
2
3
2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #26) is GRANTED.
4
All claims against
Defendant Apple, Inc. are DISMISSED with prejudice.
5
3) As the Court previously granted dismissal of Defendant Amazon.com, Inc.(Dkt. #
6
32), this case is now CLOSED.
7
8
4) Judgment shall be entered by the Clerk.
9
DATED this 17 day of November 2014.
10
A
11
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER
PAGE - 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?