LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 412 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Defendant Daylight Chemical Information Systems, Inc. - gov.uscourts.cacd.497989.412.0

8/3/2019 LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 412 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Defendant Daylight Che

1/34

12-)45(-)789

l 0l l1 2l 31 41_51 61 ' 7l 81 9202 122/ J

1 t- T

25262 728

Michael .Niborsk^iStateBarNo. 192111)e-mail [email protected] B0l CenturyParkEast, 4thFloorLos Anseles.Cal fornia. 006 -2302Tel : (3 I0)556-9608Fax: 310)556-9670TornJ.Ferbere-rnai tferber(E,pryorcashman.omRossM. BaeleV 'e-mai rbas.Tev(Dnrvorcashman.comPRYORCASHMNN IIP7 TimesSquareNew York,New York 10036-6569Tel : (212) 26-018Fax: 212)798-6382Attorney,ror DelbndantDaylishtChem c:a' I nformat on Systensl nc.

UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOUTHERNDIVISON

LISALIBERI , ta l . ,Plaintiffs,

V S .

ORLY TAITZ, et al. ,Defendants.

Case o. 8 : l 1-CV-00485-AG(AJWx)DEFENDANTDAYLIGHTCHEMICAL INFORMATIONSYSTEM, INC.'S MOTION TODISMISS ALL CLAIMSASSERTED AGAINST IT IN THEFIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT:MEMORANDUM OF POINTSAND AUTHORITIESDate: December 9,2011Tirne: I 0:00a.m.Judse:Hon. AndrewJ. GuilfordPlac-e:Courtroom 0D

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 412 Filed 10/08/11 Page 1 of 34 Page ID#:9655


2/34

I2J

IT

5()78L)

1 0l 1t 21 3l 41 51 61 71 8l 9202 l22a a/- )2425) A2728

TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..... . . . . . . . . .i iTNTRODUCTION .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A. ThePar t ies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B . TheCornp la in t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A R G U M E N T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .S rANDARDS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I. THE,COMPLAINT DOESNOTSATISFY HE RULEB STANDARD .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I I . THE ALLEGATIONSAGAINSTDCISAREIMPLAUSIBLE ND/ORFAIL TO STATEA CLAIM.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A. Plaint i f fPremiseswelveClaimsUponA SingleUtter ly mplausible etOf Facts .... . . . . .9III. EVERY CLAIM AGAINSTDCIS SUFFERSFROMFATAL PLEADINGDEFICIENCIES .. . . . I0

A. Plaintiffs'FirstClaim,Which s ActuallyThreeClaims n ViolationOf Rule8, IsConc lusoryndCannotWi ths tand ismissal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'B. Plaintiffs ail To StateA Claim br PublicDisclosure f Private actsBecause o PublicDisc losurey DCIS s A11eged . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1C. Plaintiffs'Third ClaimForFalse ight DoesNot AllegeAny Falsehood,hatDCISDisclosedAnything With ActualMalice,Or ThatAnythingDisc losed asHighlyOffensive. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -12



3/34

b78()

l 0l lt 2l 3l 4l 51 61 7l 81 9202 122L- )

2425262728

D. Plaintiffs'Fifth ClaimFor Violationofthe California nformationPrivacyAct,Cal .Civ .Code 1798.53, us tBe Dismissed. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .14E. PlaintiffsFail To AllegeA ViolationOf TheCalifornia nformation rivacyAct, Cal.Civ. Code

$ 1798.85,n TheirSixthClaimBecausehereIs No Al legat ion hatDCISPublic lyDisplayed nything.. . . . . . . . . . . .1F. Plaint i f f EighthClaimForDelamation erSe,Slander ndLibel PerSe,DoesNot ldentifyAny FalseStaternentr Any Publ icat ion,or Does t Al legeMalice.. . . . . . . . . . . .1G. PlaintiffsNinth Clairn, or IntentionalIn f l ic t ion f Emot ional is t ress .ustFai1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17H. Plaintiffs'Fourleenth laimFor Non-ComplianceWith heFairCreditReport ing ct, 15U.S.C. 1681b,FailsTo AllegeThatDCIS s A Consumer eportingAgencyWhichDisc losed Consumer epor t . . . . . . . ' . . . . ' . . .8L Plaintifl-s' eventeenthlaimFor Violationof theCalifornia

Information rivacy ct ,Cal.Civ.Code$ 1798 t seq.FailsBecause here s No AllegationThatPlaintiff-sAre Cali fbrnia esidents r Customers f DCIS .. . . - . . . . . .19J. PlaintifTs'EighteenthClaim, For Violation of CalBusiness ndProfessionsode$ 17200,s nappl icable.. . . . . .. . . . . . . .20K. Plaintifl-sNineteenth laim,ForNegligentInf l ict ion f Emotional ndMentalDistress, ustFai l . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .2IL. PlaintiffsTwentiethClaim,ForRes psaLoquitor,s Not Legal lyCognizable.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

CONCLUSTON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .



4/34

56789

1 0l 1t 2l al - )

l 4l 5l 61 71 8l 9202 122a )2425262728

TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCASES PAGB(s)Arikatv. JPMorganChase Co.,430F . Sr - rpp .2d013 N.D.Ca1 .2006). . . . 18 -19Ashcroft . lqbal,I 29 S .C t . 93 t t73L . F .d . d 868 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ,6Bardin . DairnlerChryslerorp.,136Ca l .App .4 th 1255 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bel lAt lant icCorp. . Twombly,550U.S.544 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ,, r lBerryrnan . Merit PropertyManagement.nc.,152Cal .App.4th I 544 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Branick . DowneySav. ndLoanAssociat ion,39Cal .4 th235 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2r

Brooks . Physicians linicalLaboratory.nc..No.CIV. 3-99-2155WBSDAD, 2000WL336546(E.D.Cal .Mar .20,2000) . . . . . . . . .14Brownv. Al lstatensurance o.,t7 F .Supp . d t t34 (S .D. a l .1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . 2Cel-TechCommunications.nc.v. LosAngelesCellularTelephone o.,20 Cal . th 163 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . .20Chaconas. JPMorganChase ank,713F. Supp . d r l80 (S .D.CaL.2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Charnbers. LosAngelesCo..No. CV 09-3919 BF (PLA),2010U.S.Dist.LEXIS 34812( C . D . C a l . a r . , 2 0 1 0 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

l l l



5/34

12J

45()l89

l 01 11 2l 3l 4l 5l 61 1l l

l 8l 9202 l22a aL - )

2425l o272 8

Cochran . Cochran,65Ca l .App .4 th488 1998) 17 ,18Conder . HorneSav.of America,680F . Supp . d 1168 C.D . Ca l . 010 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Davisv. Regional cceptance orp.,300F. Supp. d377 E.D.Ya.2002) . . . . . . .19Diazv. Oakland ribune.nc.,1 3 9C a l .A p p . d 1 1 8 1 9 8 3 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Durrellv. SharpHealthcare,

183Cal .App. 4 th1350 201 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2rEisenberg. Alameda ewspapers,nc.,74 Ca l . pp .4 th1359. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Erl ich . Menezes,21 Cal .4 th543 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . .22Essv. Eskaton roperlies,

97 Cal.App.4th 120 2002) . . . .21FDICv. Hulsey,22F .3d1472 10thC i r .1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Fellows . NationalEnquirer.nc.,42 Ca l . d 234 1 86) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r4Gicking . Kimberl in,170Ca l .App.3d 73 198s) . . . . . - - . . - . . . - . . - - - . .Gilbertv. Sykes,147Cal.App.4th 13 2007) . . . .16Gil l v. Curt isPubl ishing o.,38Cal .2d273 1952). . . . . - - - - . . . . . .12

IV



6/34

I21J

45o78t)

1 0l lt 2l aI J

l 4l 5l 61 71 8l 9202 122/ )2425, o2728

Gregory . Alberlson's.nc.,104Cal .App.4th845 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2Gu v. BMW of North America. LC,

132Cal .App.4th195 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . .21,22Hearns . SanBernardino oliceDepartment,s30F .3d1 t24 9thCi r .2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hi l l v. Nat ionalCol legiate thlet icAssociat ion,7 Ca l .4 th (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Howard . Arnerica nl ine.nc.,

208F.3d74t (9thCi r .2000) . . . . . . .10Jackson . Carey,353F .3d s0 g thCi r .2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Jacobson. Schwarzenegger,3s7F. Srpp.2d 1198 C.D.Ca1.2004). . . . . . . . . .16Jennif-er . v. RedwoodWomen's ealthCtr.,

8 8C a l .A p p . 4 t h l ( 2 0 0 1 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1KOVR-TV. nc.v. Superior ourt,3 l Ca l .App .4 th 1023 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kacludis . GTE,SprintComrnunicationsorp.,806F. Supp. 66 N.D.Cal .1992) . . . . . . . . . . - .5Kassa . BP WestCoastProducts, LC,No. C-08-02725 MW, 2008U.S.Dist .LEXIS61668(N.D.Ca l .Aug . 1 ,2008 ) . . . . . . . . 1BKhoury . Maly'sof Cal. . nc.,14 Cal.App. 4th612 1993) . . . .2rKoreaSuppl),Co.v. LockheedMartin Corp.,29 Cal .4 th1134 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2



7/34

I2J

1 7l 8t 920

262 72 8

456789

1 0l l121 3l 4l 5l 6

2 122

2425

KwiksetCorp. . Superior ourt,51Cal . th 10 201 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Maguca . AuroraLoanServices.No. SA CV 09-1086 VS ANx),2009U.S.Dist .LEXIS 104251(C.D.Cal .Oct .28,2009) - . . . . . . . .21Mason . Countyof Orange,251F.R.Ds62 C.D.Ca l . 008 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . .McClatchyNewspapers.nc. v. Superior ourt,189Cal .App .3d 961 1987) . . . . - - . - . . . . . - . . . . -McHenr), . Renne,84F .3d t72 (9 thC i r .1996) . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . ' . . .Morenov. Sayre,162Ca l . pp .3d 116 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . .Nelson . ChaseManhattanMortgageCorp.,282F.3d 057 9thc i r . 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

NorthStar nternational. ArizonaCorp.Commission,720F .2d 78 9th i r . 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . .Pacif-rcelegraph Telegraph o.v. City of Lodi,58Ca l .App .2d 888 1943) . . . . . - . . . . . . - - - . - . . - .Parks ch. f Business. Symington,s l F .3d1480 9thCi r .1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Poften . Universit), f SanFrancisco,64 Cat . pp.3d 82s 1964) . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . - . . - . . .Potter . Firestone ire & RubberCo.,6 Ca l .4 th96s 1993) . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . 2Reader's igestAssociation . Superior ourt,37 Ca l . 3d2441984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

VI



8/34

I2a-)45o78()

1 01 lt 21 aI J

l 4l 5l 6t ll 8l !)202 l22232125262 72 8

Shuhnan . GroupW Products.nc.,l 8 C a l . 4 t h 2 0 01 9 9 8 ) . . . . . . . 1 1 , 1Sil iconKnights. nc., . Crystal ynamics,nc.,983F. Supp. 303 N.D.Cal .1997) . . t6-17Solano . Playgir l .nc.,292F 3d1078 9thCi r .2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13Sollberger. Wachovia ecuri t ies.LC.No. SACV09-766AG (ANx),2010U.S.Dist .LEXIS66233(C .D .Ca l . une 0 ,2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . 7 ,, I 2Sprewell . GoldenStateWarriors,266F 3d979 9thCi r .2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ,9Starr . Baca,-- F .3d - ,201 U.S.Dis t . EXIS152839thCi r . Ju ly 5,2011) ' . . . . . . . .1TelesaurusPC.LLC v. Power,623F.3d998 9thCir.20l0)cerI . enied,,2 0 l l U . S . D i s t . L E X I S 6 8 8 9 ( U . S . O c t . 3 ,0 I I ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Western iningCounci l . Watt ,643 .2d 18 gthCi r .1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . .STATUTESCal .Civ .Code 44-46 . . . . . ' . 6Ca l .C iv .Code 1798.3(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Cal .Civ .Code 1798.53 14,19CalC iv .Code 1798.80( " ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Ca l .C iv .Code l798.8 l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Cal .Civ .Code 1798.82 . . . .21

v l l



9/34

I2-)45()789

l 01 l1 21 aI J

l 4l 5l 61 1t t

l 8l 9202 l2223- ) l-+

25262728

CalCiv .Code. 1798.83 1 6 ,20t 6

l 8

CalCiv. Code. 1 7 9 8 . 8 5 . . . . . . . 1, 1 6 , 9CalCiv .Code. 1798.85(aXl )Cal .Ev id .Code$646(b) . . . . .22

CalCiv .Code. 1798.84(c)

l 5 U . S . C . 6 8 l o

v l l l



10/34

I2-)456789

1 0l tt 2l al - )

l 4t 5l 6t 71 81 9202 l22232425,, )272 8

TO THE,COIJRT.ALL PARTIESAND THEIR ATTORNEYS OFRECORD:

PLEASETAKE NOTICE haton December 9,207l, at 10:00&.f f i . , r assoon hereafter s hismattermay be heardbefore heHonorableAndrewJ.Guilfbrdof the above-entitledourl ocated t 411WestFourthStreet, anta na,Califbrnia 2701,Coufiroom10D,defendant aylightChemicalnformationSysterns,nc.,havinggoodcause, ill andhereby oesmove hisCourl ordismissal f the Complaint iled by Plaintiffs isaLiberi et al.,pursuanto FederaRules f Civi l Procedure,9, and12(bX6) n he ol lowinggrounds:

(a) All causes f action ail to satisfyhepleading equirementsequiredby Fed.R. Civ. P. B,andasset orth n Ashcroft . Iqbal 129S. Ct. 1937,1949-50,173L. Ed.2d 868 2009) ndBellAt l . Corp. . Twombly, 50U.S.544,555(2007\,

(b) To theextent t is alleged, laintiffs' laims ail to statewithparlicr,rlarityircurnstancesonstitutingraud n violationof Fed.R. Civ.P. 9(b);and

(.) Failure o state claimuponwhich eliefcanbegranted ursuantoFed.R.Civ .P. 12(bX6) .

ThisMotion s andwill bebased pon hisNoticeof MotionandMotion,theMelnorandum f PointsandAuthorities,hepleadings ndpapers n fileherein, ll othermatters f which he Courtmay ake udicialnoticeanduponsuchotheror furthermaterialasmay bepresented t or before hehearingof thismatter.

This motion s made ollowing heconference f counsel ursuanto LocalRule7-3which ookplace n September3,2011.



11/34

I2345o789

l 0l l1 2l 3l 41 5l 6t 7l 8l 9202 122a a:- )2425, o

2 728

Dated:October I ,201| By:

PRYOR CASHMAN LLP

/s /M ichae lJ . N iborsk iMichael .Niborskimn borsk@pryor cashman.om1801CenturyParkEast, 4thFloorLos Angeles,CA 90067-2302Tel:310/556-9608 ax:3101556-9670Tom J. Ferbertferber@pryorcashmn. omRossM. Bagleyrb agley@pryorc shman. omPRYORCASHMAN LLP7 TimesSquareNewYork,New York 10036-6569Tel 2121326-0188Fax:2121798-6382Attorneys or DefendantDaylightChemical nformat on Systems,nc.



12/34

I2J

45o789

l 0l l1 2l 3l 41 5l 61 7l 8l 9202 122: )2425, o

2728

MEMORANDUMOF POINTSAND AUTHORITIESINTRODUCTION

De -endant ayl ght Chemical nformationSystems"DCIS" respectfulysubrnitshisMernorandumf Points ndAuthoritiesn support f its motion,pursuanto Rules8, 9(b)and12(bX6),o dismiss ll claimsasserledgainstt intheFirstArnended ornplaint"FAC").

This actionsprings rom an"intra-BirtherMovement" eudbetweenPhilipJ.Berg "Berg")andOrly Taitzwhichhasnothing o do with DCIS. Formerdefbndant osefTaitz, hePresident ndCEOof DCIS,wasnamed sa defendanin theoriginalcornplaintn thisactionandall claimsagainst irnweredismissedpursuanto a stipulation ndorder iled May 28,2009 the 2009Order").Dkt.329-7.The 2009Orderspecifically rovidedhatYosefTaitzcouldbe e-joinedasa dcf-endantnly upona findingby theCourt thatPlaintiffs aveestablishedevidence ufflciento support cognizablelaim"against im. Id. After hisactionwas ransf-erredo this Court,, laintifTsiled the FAC in which,notwithstandinghe utter mplausibility f theallegationsheyweremaking,heysoughto cast heirnetaswidelyaspossible,n an effort o bringYosefTaitzbackinto hecase.Theydid so n violationof the 2009Orderbecauseheydid notandclearly ouldnot offer heCourt he evidenceequiredo ustify haulingMr. Taitzback ntoa politicallymotivated kirmishhathasnothing o do with him. Alsocaughtn Plaintiffs' nexcusablewidenet" approacho the nclusion f partieswho havenothing o do with this skirmishareReedElsevier, nc., OracleCorporation,ntelius, nc.,andDCIS, hecompanywith whichYosefTaitz safl-rliated. husPlaintiffs, gnoringboth he etterand he spiritof the 2009Orderviolatedt not only by namingYosefTaitzasa defendantn theFAC, butalsobyatternptingo makean end un around hatorderby dragging n his company,DCIS,withoutanyplausible r good aithbasis.



13/34

I2J

Aa

56789

l 0l l1 21 al - )

l 41 51 61 71 8l 9202 122/-)a / 1L +

25262728

TheCour-tecently ranted osefTaitz'smotion o dismisso dismiss imfrom he case ecausef Plaintiffs'blatant iolationof the 2009Order.Dkt. 358.The FAC - which repeatedly llegeshat ormerdefendant osefTaitz engagedncertainacts through" DCIS (see, .g.,FAC at fltll 79-186) tries o drag n DCISasa def-endantsa "secondbite at theapple"approacho assertinghenow-dismissedlaimsagainst osefTaitz. It is respectfully ubmittedhatPlaintiffs'transparent fTortso elude heproscription f the 2009Ordershouldberejectedand hat he claimsasainstDCIS should lsobe dismissed.

A. The PartiesPlaintiffLisaLiberi ("Liberi"),u paralegal t The Law Officesof PhilipJ.

Berg "BergLaw Firm"),andLisaOstella "Ostella") lead20 claims n all, 12ofwhich umpDCIS n with numerous therdefendants.' erg oins LiberiandOstellan f-rve f theclaims,-'andhe BergLaw Firm andGo ExcelGlobal "GoExcel")oin Liberi,Ostella ndBerg or threeof the claims.a

DCIS s a privately eldcompany ith corporate ffices n LagunaNiguel,Califbrnia.As notedabove, ormerdefendant osefTaitz s thepresident ndCEOof DCIS(FAC atJ[27).All claims oncerning CISarebased ponwildlyirnplausiblellegationshat ormerdefendant osefTaitz usedDCIS echnologyto acquire laintifl-s' ersonaldentifyingnformation.

' Pursuanto FederalRuleof Civil Procedure1(b), he nvoluntary ismissalorfailure o cornplywith the stipulationoperates san adjudicationn themerits."Fed.R. Civ .P.41(b) .t C l u i l n t , 2 , 3 , 5 , ,8 ,g , 1 4 , 1 7 , 1 8 , 1 9n d 2 0 .t C l a i - r 1 , 2 , 3 , 8 n d .t Cluir't-rr, Band9.



14/34

I2345b789

t 0l l1 2l 3t 4l 51 61 7l 81 9202 122a fL )

",| lL 1

25' ( )

272 8

B. The ComplaintThe 17}-page,423-paragraphAC alleges 0 claimsagainst 9defendants

Mostof theFAC's all egations recompletelyrrelevanto DCIS,but t isnonethelessncluded n themajorityof Plaintiffs'scattershotlaims, monggroupof otherunrelated efendants,ncludingReedElsevier,nc., ntelius,nc.,andOracleCorporation.

The FAC allegesl) thatPlaintiffs'accuraterivate dentiffing nformationwasposted n the nternetby defendantOrly Taitz and(2) that Orly Taitz spreadliesaboutPlaintiff-shrough ariousmedia. FAC llT 9, 156,257,285-287)Plaintiffs llege hatOrly Taitzcommittedhese cts n retaliationor Plaintiff-s'ref-usalo sponsor er admissiono the barof the UnitedStatesSupreme ourt nher crusadeo prove hat BarackObamawasnot born n the UnitedStates nd stherefbreneligible o bePresident. FAC l 33.) Plaintiffs llege wo theories sto how Orly Taitz obtainedPlaintiffs' dentifying nformation.

First,Plaintiffs llegeOrly Taitzobtained iberiandOstella's rivateidentifyingnfbrmationhrough private etective gency,he Sankey irm, nc.,and he Sankey irm'ssubscriptiono LexisNexis nd ntelius. FACul]31,66-69, 135,220,257) "[Orly] TaitzhiredNeil Sankey,he Sankey irm,ToddSankey ndSankeynvestigations,nc. o conducthe llegalsearchesf PlaintiffsLiberiandOstella's rivatedata").Orly Taitzhasadmittedhat his s how sheobtained laintiffs'private nformation. Seemotion o dismiss f Law OfficesofOrlyTaitz,Dkt. 376,atpp.7:14-18,:6-10) "OrlyTaitzAdmissions").

Plaintiffsalsoallege hat he nformation ame o Orly Taitz hroughherhusband,ormerdefendant osefTaitz,via software ncorporatedn computermanufacturer racle's ervers, hichallegedly reusedby LexisNexis ndIntelius n theirbusinesses.FAC TlT76-183.)Plaintiffs aldlyallege hatDCIS's echnology,DayCart,nabledormerdefendant osefTaitz o access nycomputer nywheren theworld on an Oracleserverasa resultof analleged



15/34

l2-)/1a

5o789

l 01 lt 2I rI J

l r l1 5l 61 71 8l 9202 l22a- )

2425262728

"paftnership"with OracleandReedElsevier. Plaintiffsalternatively llege hatOracle,nteliusandReed's ooperation asbothnegligent nd ntentional.)SeeFAC !T,tT79, I 81 182,356-363, 08).r

Plaintiffs llege hat ormerdefendant osefTaitz,"through"DCIS, hensharedhis nformation ith Orly Taitz,who publishedt widely. FAC l'lT 81,303.) There s no allegationhatYosefTaitzdistributedhis nformationoanvone utOrlv Taitz. or that he nformationwas alse. Id . There s noexplanationbr how DCIS the company, s opposedo YosefTaitz he ndividualdefendant, haredhis informationwith formerdefendant osefTaitz'swife OrlyTaitz. There s no explanationbr why DCIS- a company hat br the ast25yearshasdeveloped dvanced,nnovative oftware o handlechemicalinfbrmation would seek o access very omputer atabasesingOracleproducts r why onewould developa "backdoor" n DayCartwhen,by Plaintiffs'own allegations,he nfbrmation asavailableo the Sankey irm(or anyone lsefbr thatmatter) hrough mere ubscriptiono theLexisNexis nd nteliusservices.FAC ]lJ66-70,156.)Finally,andcritically or rnany f Plaintiflb'jurnbled laims, here s no allegation hatsoeverinking DCIS o theallegediesOrly Taitzpurportedly pread n he nternet nd adioandelsewhere.

' In theirmotion o dismiss, eedElseviernc.,LexisNexis iskSolut ionsnc.,andLexisNexisRisk Assetsnc. collectivelyhe'oReed efendants")lsonotetheoutlandishnessf Plaintiffs' heory: Plaintiffsalsomake heconvoluted ndutterly mplausible ontentionhatdefendant osefTaitz caused softwarecompany ith which he s involved o builda secretbackdoor' nto everyOracledatabasen the world,and hatYosefTaitzused his'backdoor'to gather romsomeReedDefendant ataabout laintiffs."(Dkt.381P. 10:23-26.)Moreover,asstatedn Intelius'smotion o dismiss, ocketNo. 380-1, On April 12,2009,[Orly] Tattzpurchased publicrecordsbackgroundcheck'search n thename'LisaLiberi' through ntelius." Dkt.380- , NelsonDecl., l 5 andEx. 1 nsupporl f Inteliusmotion.)



16/34

I2-)456789

l 0l ll 2l al - )

l 41 5l 6t ll 8l 9) n2 l22/-)242526272 8

ARGUMENTSTANDARDS

Federal uleof Civil Procedure(aX2) equireshata complaint et orthashortandplainstatement ufficient o notify defendant f the factsalleged gainstit andshow hat hepleaders entitledo relief. Whiledetailedactual llegationarenot required,Rule 8 "demandsmore hananunadorned,he-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-meccusation." shcroft . Iqbal 129S. Ct. 1937,1940,1949, 13L. Ed.2d 868,883 U.S.2009) cit ingBell At l . Corp. . Twombly, 50U.S.544,555 2007)).Pursuanto Rule8(dXl),"[e]ach l legat ion ustbesimple, oncise, nddirect." [f the claim s fraudbased,hepleadings subjectoa higher tandard f particularity ursuanto Rule9(b).

Pursuanto Rule 2(bX6),a complaint houldbe dismissed hen tsallegationsre egally nsufficient.NorthStar nt'l v. ArizonaCorp.Qamrn-n, 20F.2d578,5B (gthCir. 1983). A complaint aybedismissedsa matter f lawfor two reasons:l) lackof a cognizableegal heoryor (2) insufficientactsundea cognizableheory."Kacludis . GTE SprintCommunicationsorp.,806F.Supp. 66,870 N.D.Cal. 1992) citation mitted).While hecourlmustview allallegationsf materialact n the ightmost -avorableo thenon-moving arty,ParksSch.of Bus.v. Slzmington,1 F.3d1480,1484 9thCir. 1995), courtneednot"assumehe ruthof legalconclusions erelybecauseheyarecast n the ormof fbctual llegations."WesternMining Councilv. Watt,643F.2d 618,624 9thC i r .1 9 8 1 ) .

Moreover,he Supreme ourthas ecently rticulatedhat a complaintmustcontainsufficient actualmatter, ccepted s rue, o 'statea claim o reliefthat s plausible n ts face"' Iqbal,129S.Ct.at 1949,173 .Ed.2d at884(quoting wombly,550u.S. at 570)."A claimhas acialplausibilitywhen heplaintiff pleads actualcontent hat allows he court o draw he reasonableinferencehat hedefendants iable or the allegedmisconduct."d. at 1949,173



17/34

1234

o7u9

l 0l 1t 2t aI J

l 4l 5l 61 at /l 8l 9202 12223" l n/-+

25262728

L. Ed. 2d at 884. A court shouldnot accept ft]hreadbareecitalsof the elementsof a cause f action's lements,upportedy mereconclusory tatements,"d., or"allegationshat aremerelyconclusory, nwarranted eductions f fact,, runreasonablenferences." prewell . GoldenStateWarriors,266 .3d979,988(9thCir.2001 . The l2(bX6) standardhus equiresmore hana sheer ossibilitthata defendant asacted nlawfully" Iqbal,129S. Ct. at 1949,173L. Ed.2datBB4, i t ingTwombly, 50U.S.at 557,and complaint hould edismissedherethe actual llegationso not raise he"right o reliefabove he speculativeevel."Be l lA t lan t i c , 27S.Ct .a t 1965 .

Finally, [a] district ourtmaydenya plaintiff eave o amendf i tdeterrnineshat allegation f other actsconsistent ith the challenged leadingcouldnotpossibly ure he deficiency.. or if theplaintiffhadseveralopportunitieso amendts complaint nd epeatedlyailed o curedeficiencies."Telesar-rrusPC.LLC v. Power,623 .3d998,1003 gthCir.2010) ert . enied,20l l U.S.Dist .LEXIS 6889 U.S.Oct. , 2011) internal i tat ion quotat ionsornit ted);ee lso ackson. Carey353 F.3d750,758 9thCir.2003);Conder .HorneSav. f Am.,680F. Supp. d 1168 C.D. Cal.2010) Guil fbrd, .) .

POINT ITHE COMPLAINT DOESNOT SATISFYTHE RULE 8 STANDARD

The FAC is not short; o thecontrary,t is a prolix n theextreme ith its172pageswith 423paragraphs.t is nota plainstatement;ndeedmuchof it,including n particularhe allegationsgainst CIS, ncludes random ollectionof technicaljargon hichPlaintiffs o not evenattempto elucidate. t isrepetitive ndattemptso lay blameupona groupof unrelatedDefendants"orsingleacts.And, mostcritically, t is not sufficiently raftedo notifyDCISof thefactsallegedagainstt, to satisfy heFederalRules,or to comportwith the noticerequirementf dueprocess.



18/34

I234

o789

1 0l 1t 2l aI J

l 4l 5l 6t 1l 81 9202 l22

2425_o272 8

As pointedout by theReedDefendantsn theirmotion o dismisshe FAC,defendants regenerallyumped ogether sa group n Plaintiffs' allegations.(Dkt.381,Memorandum f Points ndAuthorities tp. 5:8-2I.) DCIS s not evenidentifiedn Plaintiffs'second,hird, ifth or sixthclaimsagainstt. This ackofspecific eferenceo DCIS, ogetherwith the fact hatcerlainclaimsareallegedagainsteachandeverydefendant.. separately,,"ake t impossibleo determinwhichclaimswereactuallyntendedo bealleged gainstDCIS. (FACn1|240,249.)TheFAC's convolutedumbleof allegationshusdoesnot satisfyRule8'spleading tandard.SeeSollberger. WachoviaSecs. LC, No. SACV09-766AG (ANx\ ,2010U.S.Dis t . EXIS66233, t *11 (C.D.Cal . une 0,2010)(Guilfbrd, .)(dismissing laimswheredefendants eregroupedogetherhroughuseof the"omnibus erm Defendants"'andcomplaintwasproduct f a "shotgunpleading" tylewhich"overwhelm efendants ith an unclearmass f allegationandmake t difficultor impossibleor defendantso make nfbrmed esponsesotheplaint i f f 's l legat ions")i t ingMason . County f Orange, 51F.R.D. 62,563-64C.D.Cal.2008) "experienceeacheshat,unless ases repledclearlyandprecisely,ssues renot oined,discoverys not controlled,he rialcourt'sdocket ecomes nmanageable,he itigants uffer, ndsocietyoses onfidencenthecourt 's bi l i ty o administerust ice.") .

In furtherderogation f Rule8(dXl 's language,heFAC's allegationsreanything ut"simple, oncise, nddirect."Theyareconvoluted nd ambling ndutterly -ail o useanything esemblingplainstatements." or example, laintiffsmake heopaque llegationshat:

o DCISmakes applications" hich nclude toolkits"whichare builtinto he design f Oracle"andallow"for remote pplicationalexecution, rosssitescripting, emote nterface nd njectionattacks"(FAC l 178. )



19/34

12J

/T5678I

l 0l l1 2l aI J

l 4l 5l 61 71 8l 9202 l22/- ).\/i a

25' ( )2728

o "As a resultof thedesign f Oracle ndDaylightCIS' toolkitbasedarchitecture pplications, osefTaitz hroughDaylightCIS has opuseraccesso any computer, erver; nd/ordatabasen which Oracleproducts re ocated." FAC ll180.)

o o'DefendantYosefTaitzthroughhis Corporation,DaylightCIScreatedDaylightToolkits or dualpurpose ntent. TheDaylightapplicationsrepartof Oracle's esign.Oracle s scripted,hroughthe useof DaylightApplicationso interface ll information,including utnot imited o all information tored n Oracle ervers,all customerog-in detailsandotherprivate data, ack o DefendantTaitz'sandDaylightCIS's emote ervers."FAC l 304.)

The FAC shouldbedismissedecausehese llegations revague, paqueand so verbose, onfused nd edundanthat ts ruesubstance,f any, s welldisguised." ee .g.,Hearns . SanBernardino ol iceDep't ,530F.3d 124,113(9thCir. 2008) citations quotations mitted);SeeMcHenryv. Renne, 4 F.3d1172,17B-79 9thCir. 1996) "fs]omethingabeled complaint utwrit tenmoreas .. prolix n evidentiary etail, etwithoutsimplicity, oncisenessndclarityasto whornplaintiffs aresuing or whatwrongs, ails o perform heessentialfunctions f a complaint" nd impose[s] nfairburdens n litigants nd udges.")RuleB s an ndependentasis or dismissal f the claimsagainstDCIS. Id. atl l79; chambers . LosAngeles o. ,No.cv 09-3919 BF (PLA) ,2010 .S.Dis t .LEXIS34812,at 9 (C.D.Cal .Mar .5 ,2010) ; o l lberger ,2010.S.Dis t .LEXIS66233, t * 13.



20/34

I2J

na

6789

1 0l l1 2l 3l 41 5l 6

r 8l 9202 l22

a A- +

25262728

POINT IITHE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DCIS

ARE IMPLAUSIBLE AND/OR FAIL TO STATE A CLAIMA. PlaintiffsPremiseTwelveClaims

Upon A SingleUtterlv ImplausibleSetOf FactsTheCourtneednot accept s ruePlaintifTs'ar-f-etchedheory that ormer

defbndant osef Taitzwas able, hroughDCIS, o access ll the nformationonanycomputer singOracle ervers. his heory s based ntirely ponconclusoryallegations, ndseeks o have his Courlmake unwarranted eductions f fact"and drawunreasonablenferences"rom heFAC's mix of confusing ndhighlytechnical ibberish r baldconclusoryl legat ions. prewell266 F.3dat988.

Plaintiffs llege o facts upportingheirclaim hatDCIS softwaresincorporatedn Oracle's roducts, r that heReedand ntelius,nc.,defendantsuse hose roducts.FAC Tfl 71,176-179.) here s no al legat ionescribingwhatDCIS echnology oesor why Oracle llegedly ses t. There s noallegation hicheven ernotely eginso explainhow or why DCIS anestablishedompanyhatdealswith chemicalnformation woulddeveloptecl-rnologyhatwouldallow t to secretly ccess omputers crossheworld.There s no allegation xplaining hy Orly Taitzwouldnot simplyobtain hisinfbnnation iorn the SankeyFirm or, therefore,why formerdefendant osefTaitzwouldneed o conducthisabsurd ver-blown ndpatently mplausiblechememerely o obtainPlaintiffs'identifyingnformation.'Thet" s no allegationregarding ow formerdefendant osefTaitzsupposedly ave nformationo OrlyTaitz,his wif-e, through DaylightCIS," andnot simply n his role asherhusband(FAC l 303.) Plaintiffs llege o conduct y anyDCIS employee, irector,engineer r manager ther han ormerdefendant osefTailz,who is handcuffed' SeeOrlv TaitzAdmissions.



21/34

1234

o789

1 0l lt 2l 3t 4l 5l 6t 71 8l 9202 l22232425) A272 8

to everyDCIS allegation.TheFAC's allegationsimplydo not ay out a plausiblfactualpredicate ntitling hem o thepresumption f truth. SeeStarrv. Baca,_F.3d , 2011lJ.S. ist .LEXIS 15283, t*37 (9thCir. Iuly 25,2011) "[ f ] i rst , obe entitled o thepresumption f truth,allegationsn a complaintor counterclaimmay not s implyrecite he elements f a cause f action,butmustcontainsufficienallegations f underlying acts o give fair noticeand o enablehe opposing artyto defend tself effbctively.Second,he factualallegationshatare akenas ruemustplausiblysuggest n entitlemento relief, such hat t is not unfair o requiretheopposing arty o be subjectedo theexpense f discovery ndcontinuedl i t igat ion.") .

Independentf Plaintiffs'wildly implausible llegations,ll of the12claimsagainstDCIS also ail to allege -actualvermentsupporling ssentialelements.

POINT II IEVERY CLAIM AGAINST DCIS

SUFFERSFROM FATAL PLEADING DEFICIENCIESA. Plaintiffs'First Claim,Which Is Actually

ThreeClaims n Violat ionOf Rule 8, sConclusorv nd CannotWithstandDismissal

In the irst claim br relief,plaintiffsBerg,Liberi andOstella llegehattheirprivate dentifyingnformation aspublished, ut allege o specific onducby DCIS n theparagraphsetout or theirclaim or invasion f privacy seeFACllfl I 87-204).The first legal heory or invasionof privacy subsumed ithin thefirst claim alleses hat herewasa violationof theFirst andFourteenthAmendrnenfs.his theorymust a il becausehere s no allegationhatDCIS s agovernment ctor,and only a government ctorcanviolate hese onstitutionalrightsof privacy.SeeOracleDecisionatp.4 citingHowardv. AmericaOnlinelnc . , 08F.3d141,754 9thCi r .2000) .

l 0



22/34

I2-)45678()

1 0l l1 21 31 4t 5l 61 71 81 9202 122/ )''\ /1: +

25262728

The secondegal heoryPlaintiffspurport o includewithin their irst claimfor relief s a violationof theCaliforniaConstitution'sight o privacy.For hisclairn o withstand motion o dismiss, laintiffsmustshow l) a legallypprivacy nterest;2) a reasonablexpectationf privacyunder hecircumstancesand 3) conduct y defendant onstituting seriousnvasion f privacy.Hill v.Nat ional ol legiate thlet icAssn. 7 Cal.4th ,39-40 1994).

PlaintifTsail to adequately et orth specific acts o support heirclaim hatDCIScomrnitted seriousnvasion f theirprivacy. The conclusory llegationthat"The ReedDefendants ndDefendantntelius, nc.,YosefTaitz,DaylightCIandOracle conducted] illful andmalicious cts n violatingeveryaspect f thePlaintiffs' ight to privacy,Plaintiff-s'ight to be eft aloneand heDefendantsinvasion f Plaintiff-s' rivacy,"FAC tT198,which s merelya rote ecitation fthis ort'selements's insufficiento state claim Twombl)"550 U'S'at 556n'3)anddoesnot allege anegregious reach f the socialnormsunderlyingheprivacy ight." Hi l l , 7 Cal.4that37.

Finally, o theextent heCourt eads hese llegationso include potentiaclairnunder he common aw heoryof intrusion ponseclusion sstatedn theOracleDecision,his claim ails or the same easons sPlaintiffs' laimunder heCalifbrniaConstitution ndbecause laintiffs ave ailed o allege hatDCIS'sconduct, urporledly nabling ormerdefendant osefTaitz o harvestinfbnnation, ausedheir njuryor wouldbe highlyoffensiveo a reasonableperson. eeShuhnan. GroupW Prods. .nc . ,18Cal .4 th200,232 1998)(intrusion laim equires llegationsf (l) intrusionntoa private pace,conversationr matter, 2) n a manner ighlyoffensiveo a reasonableerson).

B. Plaintiffs Fail To StateA Claim for Public DisclosureofPrivate

In keepingwith Plaintiffs' shotgun leading tyle,Liberi, OstellaandBergallege hat heirprivate dentifying nformationwaspublished, ut makeno

l l



23/34

I2JAT

5678()

1 01 l1 2l 3l 4l 5l 6t 7t 8l 9202 122232425262728

referenceo DCIS n theparagraphsetout or thisclaim. (FACfln206-214.)SeSollberger2011U.S.Dist.LEXIS 66233, t * 12, 13 (noting hatone ypeofshotgun leadings "where heplaintiff ecites collection f general llegationstoward he beginningof theComplaintand heneachcount ncorporatesveryantecedentllegation y reference" nd inding hat"[t]his shotgun leading tyledeprivesDefendants f knowingexactlywhat hey areaccused f doingwrong .and his defbctalonewarants dismissal") internalcitationandquotation mitted)

To pleada claim or publicdisclosuref private acts,Plaintiffsmustallege( I ) publicdisclosur, (2) of a private act 3)whichwould beoffensive ndobjectionableo a reasonableerson nd 4) which s not of legitimate ublicconcern.Shulman, 8 Cal. 4that 232. Thisclaim equires publicdisclosureinthesense f communicationo thepublic n general r to a largenumber fpersons, sdistinguishediom one ndividual r a fbw." Porlen . Universit), fSanFrancisco,64 al.App.3d 825,828 1964).

This clairn ailsbecauseo there s no allegationhatDCIS disclosed nyprivate -actso anyone, iazv. Oakland ribune.nc. 139Cal.App.3d I 18,131( 1983),and here s no allegation hat he informationwas highly offensiveor hasgone beyondhe imitsof decency"Gil l v. Curt isPubl 'gCo.,38 Cal.2d273,280 es2),

C. Plaintiffs'Third Claim For FalseLight DoesNot AllegeAny Falsehood, hat DCIS Disclosed nything With ActualMalice.Or That Anvthing DisclosedWas Highlv Offensive

All Plaintiffsoin in this claim,whichpurports o beagainst ll defendantsbutonceagain here s no specific eferenceo DCIS n theallegationsnder he"ThirdCause f Action." (FACfltl2l6-225.) Instead, l l Plaintiffs tick o therroreplausible heoryon this claim hat heirprivate nformation ame o OrlyTaitz hrough he Sankey irm. (FAC T'\T216,220.)

t2



24/34

TheCourlhasstatedn the OracleDecision hat n order o makeout aclairn or false ight,Plaintiffsmustallege hat (1) defendant isclosednformationabout hem hatwas actually alseor created false mpression;2) oneor morepersonsound he nformation o stateor imply something ighly offensivehatwouldhavea tendencyo injurePlaintiffs' eputation;3) DCISactedwithconstitutional aliceby clearandconvincing vidence; nd 3) Plaintiffsweredamaged y thedisclosure. eeOracleDecision tp. 6 citingSolano . Playgirl.Lnc.,292 .3d1078, 082 9thCir.2002).

First, here s no allegation f falsehood. laintiffsmerelyallege hat"Defbndants osef Taitz andDalight CISprovidedall of Plaintiffs'privatepersonaldentifying nformation, inancialdata, amily data, irth data, ndotherinformation o his wif-e,who used he nformation o carryouther hreats gainstthePlaintifl-s."FAC 1177) Elsewheren theFAC,Plaintiffs llege hat heywerehalned by thedisseminationf theiraccurate social Security umbers, ates fbirth,placeof birth,mother'smaiden ames, laintiff.smaiden ames, reditreports, river's icensenformation,inancial ata, ealed ourtcasenformationphotographs,rimary dentificationnformation, inancialdata, usband's ames,SocialSecurity umbers nddates f birth,children's ames nd dentities, ndotherprivatedataoutlined erein. " (FAC 11251.)Moreover, ll claims ff-alsehoodreconfined o Orly Taitz and he SankeyFirm. (FAC. 11216-220.)SincePlaintiffs asehisclaimon thealleged isseminationf accurateinforrnation,hesinequa non of a false ight claim s absent.

Second, ven f Reedand nteliuskept ncorrect ersonalnformation orPlaintifl,which(accordingo Plaintiffs' ingular,rivolous heory)wassomehowaccessedy formerdefendant osefTaitzusingDCIS software,here s no claimthatDCIS knew or hada reckless isregardor the ruth of the nformationallegedly rovidedo Orly Taitz. SeeReader's igestAss'nv. Superior ourt,37Cal .3d244.253. 65 1984) .

1 aI J

123t+5o789

l 0l l1 2l aI J

l 41 5l 6't '7

I t tl 9202 122a aL )

2.42526272 8



25/34

12a-)4

o789

1 0l l1 21 3l '+l 5l 61 71 8l 9202 122L- )a i:, +

25262728

Third, here s no allegationhatdisclosure f this allegedlyalseinforrnationwould be highly offensiveo a reasonableerson, nother equisiteelement f a false ight claim. Fellows . NationalEnquirer.nc. 42 Cal.3d234,238 1986) "[i]n order o be actionable,he alse ight n which heplaintiff splacedmustbehighlyoffensiveo areasonableerson.").

Foufth, his alse ight claim s duplicative f Plaintiffs'defamationlaimandshould e dismissedor that ndependenteason.McClatchyNewspapers.Inc.v. Superior ourt , 89 Cal.App.3d 961,965 1987) dupl icat ivealse ightclaimshould edismissed);isenberg. Alameda ewspapers.nc.,74Cal.App4th 1359,1385 n.13 1999) false ight claimcoupledwith defamationlaim ssuperfluous);rooksv. Physicians linicalLab.. nc.,No. CIV. 3-99-2155WBSDAD, 2000WL 3365 6 4 (8.D.Cal.Mar. 20,2000).Finally,Go Exceland heBergLaw Firm may not state his claimbecauset may only be broughtby anatural erson.

D. Plaintiffs'Fifth Claim,For Violationofthe California InformationPrivacyAct,Cal.Civ. CodeQ1798.53. ust Be Dismissed

Sect ion 798.53 f theCali fornia ivi l Codeal lowsa claimagainst nyone"who intentionally isclosesnformation, ot otherwise ublic,which heyknowor should casonablynowwasobtainedrompersonalnformationmaintained ya state gency r f iorn'records'within 'system f records'. . maintainedy afederal overnmentgency.." Cal.Civ.Code$ 1798.53.Agency" s def ined s"every Califbrnia] tate ff-tce, fficerdepartment,ivision,bureau, oardcornmission,r other tate gency.. ." al.Civ.Code$ 1798.3(b).

There s no allegationhatDCISdisclosed nything. ndeed, lthought isonceagain umped n with "all Defendants," CIS is not referencedn theparagraphsetout for this claim. (FAC 11243.)Accordingly, here s noallegationhatDCIS knewor shouldhaveknown hat any nformationallegedly

l 4



26/34

II3456789

l 0l lt 2l 31 4l 5t 6l 7I u1 9202 l22232425262728

disclosed y anyoneoriginatedwithin a stateor federalgovernment gency, ordoes heFAC includean allegationhatDCIS obtained ny "records" romwithina "systemof records"maintained y agovernment gency. See enniferM. v.RedwoodWomen'sHealthCtr. ,88Cal.App.4th81,89(2001) "[o]n ts ace, heInformation ractices ct is aimed t barring r limiting he disseminationfconfidential ersonalnformation andpreventinghe misuse f such nformation- by government gencies").The FAC mere lyalleges hat nformationwasobtained nddisclosed y otherdefendantsrom Liberi's credit eports,which arenotmaintained y a government gency.There s no allegation t all aboutOstella'sdentifying nformation. FAC11 42.)E. PlaintiffsFail To AllegeA ViolationOf The

California Information PrivacyAct, Cal. Civ. CodeS 1798.85,n Their SixthClaim Because hereIs No AlleeationThat DCIS PubliclyDisplayedAnvthine

Pursuanto Cali fornia iv i l Code$ I 798.85(aX),a personmaynot"[p]ubl ic ly ostor publ ic ly isplayn anymanner n ndividual 's ocial ecuri tynumber. Publiclypost'or 'publiclydisplay'meanso intentionally ommunicator otherwisenake vailableo thegeneral ublic."

Here,again,DCIS is not referencedn theparagraphs et brth for thisclaimand herefbrehere s no allegation hatDCIS disseminatedny nformation oanyone. FAC flfl1248-264.) oreover, heFAC allegeshat t was he SankeyFinn, notDCIS, hatprovidednformationo Orly Taitzandpublishedhatinforrnation.SeeFAC 11257)"[a]ll theprivateandprimary dentificationinformation f Plaintiffs iberiandOstella, utlined ereinabove asintentionally ublished ndpromoted y Orly Taitz,The Law Officesof OrlyTaitz,Orly Tatiz, nc.,DOFF,Neil Sankey,he SankeyFirm throughToddSankeandSankeynvestigations,nc.with malice, ross egligence ndwith recklessdisregard s o the damagest wouldcause laintiffs iberli andOstella...").The

1 5



27/34

I2J

4

6789

1 0l lt 2t aI J

l 4l 5l 61 7l 81 9202 l22a 1L )

2425, o272 8

bareallegationshat"[a]11 efendants irectlyparticipatedn the llegal access fanddistribution f Plaintiffs iberi andOstella's rivate onfidentialinforrnation,"FAC fl 255),and hat Plaintiffs'Liberi andOstella sserthisclaimagainst achandeveryDefendant amedherein" FAC 11249),o not satisRule 12(b)(6)'s lausibility tandard. shcroft 129S. Ct. at 1949,173L. Ed.2dat 883-84.

Finally,while Plaintiffs' ailure o satisfyRule8 makes t difficult todiscern,t appearshat heyattempto assertiabilitypursuanto $ 1798.84(c)oranal leged iolat ion f CalCiv.Code$ 1798.85. owever, 1798.8a(c) 'sineappl ies nly o violat ions f $ 1798.83, hichPlaint i f fs ave otal leged ere.F. Plaintiffs Eighth Claim,For DefamationPerSe,

Slanderand Libel Per Se,DoesNot Identify Any FalseStatementOr Anv Publication.Nor Does t AllegeMalice

To state claim br defamation,ncluding lander nd ibel,a plaintiffmustestablishI ) a falsestatementf fact; 2) that s published;3) of or concerningplaintiff (4) causingnjury o plaintiffs reputation;nd 5) maliceor fault. Cal.Civ.Code$ 44-46;Gilbert . S) 'kes,147 al.App. 4th13,27 2007)'

First, he infbrmation hat ormerdefendant osefTaitzwasallegedo haveobtained ia DCIS echnologys not allegedo be alse.Plaintiffs o notevenallegehata f-alse tatement asdisseminated,d.,andsurelydo not dentifyanysuch -alsetatement ith theparticularityequiredo statehisclairn.SeeJacobson. Schwarzenegger,35T. Supp. d l l9B, 1216 C.D.Cal.2004)("[u]nderCalifornia aw, althougha plaintiff neednot plead he allegedlydefarnatory tatementerbatim, heallegedly efamatory tatement ustbespecificallydentifiedand heplaintiff mustplead he substancef thestatement.Evenunder iberal ederal leading tandards,generalallegations f thedefamatory tatements' hich do not identify he substance f whatwassaidareinsufficient")internal itations mitted);SiliconKnights. nc..v. Crystal

t 6



28/34

I2345678I

1 0l l1 21 3l 4t 5l 6

1 81 9202 122! )

2425262.728

Dynamics.nc . ,983 . Supp. 303,3 l4 (N.D.Cal . 997) "Thewordsconstituting libel or slandermustbe specificallydentified,f notpleadverbatirn.")citation& quotations mitted).

This claimalso ailsbecausehere s no allegation f publication y DCISandno allegationhatsuchdisclosure asmadewith faultor malice. ndeed,DCIS appears gain o havebeen mproperlyumped nto this claim,which sbased pon he alleged isseminationf false nformation y Orly Taitzand heSankey irrn. (FAC'1T86) "The false] osts ndstatementseremadeby NeilSankey y and hroughSankey nvestigations nd he SankeyFirm ownedbyToddSankey,Orly TaitzasanAttorneyandOfficerof the Courtby and hroughtheLaw Offlcesof Orly TaitzandasPresident f Orly Taitz,Inc.andDOFF,withknowledge f the falseand ibelousnatureof thestatementsontainedhereinandwith gross egligencend eckless isregardor the ruth."). DCISengagedn noacts elating o thisclaim,and s not allegedo havedoneso.

G. Plaint i f fsNinth Claim.For Intent ionalInfliction Of EmotionalDistress.Must Fail

To state claim br intentionalnflictionof emotional istress, laintiffsmustshow ) extrerne ndoutrageousonduct y the defendant ith the ntentioof causing, r reckless isregardor theprobability f causing, motional istress(2) heplaintiffsuff-eredevere r extreme motional istress; nd 3) heplaintilf s injurieswereactually ndproximately aused y the def-endant'soutrageousonduct.Cochran . Cochran, 5 Cal.App. 4th 488,494 1998).Conducts outrageousnly f it "exceedfs] ll bounds f thatusually oleratedn acivilized ommunity."KOVR-TV. nc.v. Superior ourt,3l Cal.App. 4th 1023,1028 1995) citations ndquotations mitted). t canbeconsideredutrageousonly f ( 1 the defendant buses relation r positionwhichgiveshim power odamagehe plaintiff s interest;2) thedefendant nows hat he plaintiff issusceptibleo injuries hroughmentaldistress; r (3) thedefendant cts

l 7



29/34

I2JI+

5o78O

l 0l l12l 3l 4l 5l 6t 71 8l 9202 l22L- )

1 l- +

25262728

intentionally r unreasonably ith therecognition hat he actsare ikely to resultin illness hroughmental istress.Chaconas. JPMorganChase ank,713FSupp . d 1180 , 187 -88S.D.Ca l . 010 ) .

There s no alleged onduct y DCISwhich couldpossibly econstruedsextreme r outrageous.Nor is thereanyclaim hatDCIS hadanyrelationship itany of thePlaintiffs,knew heyweresusceptibleo mentaldistress, r thatknewthatallegedly ommunicating laintiffs' dentifying rivate nformation as ikelyto resultn i l lness.

Evenassuming rguendohat hisoutlandish laimwereplausible,here sno allegation f conduct y DCISwhichcouldbe consideredxtreme ndoutrageous,nd he far-fetched llegationhat DCIS has nserted ome echnologyinto Oracle ervers hichenabledt to access thercomputerss notpleaded stheproxirnate ause f Plaintiffs'atlegednjuries.Cochran, 5 Cal.App. 4that494.

Finally, hisclairn annot ebrought y Go Excelor theBergLaw Firmbecauset canonly bebrought y a natural erson.SeealsoFDICv. Hulsey, 2F.3d1 72, 1489 OthCir. 1994); assa . BP WestCoastProds.. LC,No. C-0802725 MW,2008U.S.Dis t .LEXIS61668 23 (N.D.Cal .Aug. l ,2008) .

H. Plaintiffs' FourteenthClaim,For Non-ComplianceWith the Fair CreditReport ingAct, 15 U.S.C.S 168lb'Fai lsTo AllegeThat DCIS Is A ConsumerReport ingAgencvWhich Disclosed ConsumerReport

TheFairCreditReporl ing ct, I 5 U.S.C. 1681r regulatesconsumerreporting gencies" ho furnish consumereports."Arikatv. JPMorganChase

' Although hisclaim s confusingly leadedn violationof Rule8, 1681o oesnot actuallystatean ndependentlaimandmerelyprovidesa remedy orv io la t ionsf 1 5U.S.C. 1681b.

1 8



30/34

I2JAT

5()789

1 0l l1 21 a

l 4l 5l 61 at ll 8t 9202 122L- )

2425262 728

& Co.,430F. Srpp.2d 1013,1023-25N.D.CaL.2006);elson . ChaseManhattanMortgageCorp.282 F.3d 1057 1060 gth Cir.2002).

This claim ailsbecausehere s no allegationhatDCISwasa "consumerreporlingagency"or obtained ny "consumereport." Davisv. RegionalAcceptanceorp., 00F. Supp. d377,385 E.D.Ya.2002) claimdismissedwhereno allegationhatplaintiff was a consumereportingagency).Curiously,Plaintiffs llege egligencen this claim,asserlinghat"Defendants osefTaitz,DaylightCISandOraclewerenegligentn illegallyscriptingheDaylightToolkitApplications o interface he nformationmaintained n the databasesndcomputersn which Oracleserverswere unning o Defendants osefTaitz andDaylightCIS. Defendants osefTaitzandDaylightCISwereextremely egligenin sharingheprivatedata hey llegallyobtainedwith !!sw!!, to carryout hiswifb's hreats gainsthePlaintiffs." FAC l358) emphasisupplied).As theref-erenceo "his wif-e"makes lear, his s reallya claimagainst osefTaitz,whois no longera def-endant.n anyevent,here s no explanation f howDCIScoulddevelopechnology nintentionally,r how DCIS ntentionally r unintentionallycomrnunicatednythingo Orly Taitz.

I. Plaintiffs' Seventeenth laim, For Violationof theCalifornia Information PrivacyAct, Cal. Civ. Code$ 1798etseq.,FailsBecause here Is No AllegationThatPlaintiffsAre CaliforniaResidentsOr CustomersOf DCIS

In aparticularly gregiousiolationof Rule8, hisclaimdoesnot dentifyanyspecificegal heory, ut merely ites o thewhole nformation rivacyActsection f theCaliforniaCivil Code.As an nitialmatter ndasnoted n theOracleDecision, ecause 1798.53 nd$ 1798.85 avealready een ndividual lyallegedn theFAC in Plaintiffs'FifthandSixthclaim,DCIS doesnot repeattsarsumentso disrniss laimsunder hose ections ere.

t 9



31/34

I23AT

5(-)789

l 0l l1 2l 3t 41 5t 61 1t t

l 81 9202 l22a -L - )

2125/ o2728

Plaintiffsmaymean o pleada claimunder$ 1798.81, hich stateshat [a]businesshall akeall reasonabletepso destroy .. customer'secords ithin tscustody r controlcontaining ersonalnformation...," ndpermits Californiaresident ho s a customer f a businesso sue or disclosure f personalinfbrmation atheredn connection ith a commercialransaction. al.Civ. Code$ 1 7 9 8 . 8 1

First,asnoted n theOracleDecision, iberi s a resident f New MexicoandOstellas a resident f New Jersey, otCalifornia, nd husneithermaybringa claimunder$ 1798.81 r $ 1798.82. FAC lTfl4, 8.) Second, laintiffsmaynotplead claimunder$ 1798.83 ecausehatsection pples nly o customersndthere s no allegationhatLiberior OstellawereDCIScustomers. eeCalCiv.Code$ 1798.80(c)defining Customer" ssomeone ho previously rovided"personalnfbnnationo a businessor thepurpose f purchasing r leasingproduct r obtaining servicerom a business."). or is thereanallegationhatDCISdisclosed ny nformationo any hirdparty.

Finally, o the extentPlaintiffsmaybe attemptingo pleada claimunderCali fbrnia ivi l Code$ 1798.82equir ing al i fornia usinesseso disclosenysecurity reach f a computer ystem ontaining ersonalnformationo anyCalifbrnia esident,his claimmust ail becausehere s no allegationhatDCISeverowned, icensed r maintainedomputerizedatacontaining laintiffs'personalnforrnation r that herewasevera breach f DCIS'ssecurity ystem.

J. Plaintiffs' EighteenthClaim, For Violation ofcal. Business nd Professionsode Q17200,s Inappl icable

Section17200 f the CaliforniaBusiness ndProfessions odeprohibits"anyunlawful,unfairor fraudulent usiness ctor practice." Here, herewasnounfairor fraudulent ractice lleged o havebeencommittedby DCIS. SeeGregory . Albertson's.nc. 104Cal.App. 4th 845,854 2002) itingCel-TechCornmc'ns.nc.v. LosAngelesCellulelfql-Qo.,20 Cal.4th 163 1999);

20



32/34

I2-)456789

1 01 lt 2l al - )

l 4l 5l 6t ll 8l 9202 122!- )

2425262728

Berryrnan. Merit PropertyMsmt.. nc.,152Cal.App.4th 1544,15552007);Durrellv. SharpHealthcare, 83Cal.App. 4th 1350,1366 2010).Because ounfairor fraudulent ractice asbeenalleged,hisclaimhasno predicate ndshould edismissed. aguca . Aurora oanServs., o. SA CV 09-1086 VS(ANx),2009U.S.Dist .LEXIS 10425110 (C.D.Cal.Oct.28,2009) dismissing$17200 lairnpredicatedn other laims).This vague raud-basedlaimalso ailsRule9(b) 'spart icular i tytandard.Khour) 'v.Maly'sof Cal. . nc.,14Cal.App.4th612,619 1993);Bardinv. DaimlerChryslerorp. 136Cal.App. 4th 1255,127 (2006\.

Finally,S17200 rovides nly or restitution s elief,KoreaSupplyCo.v.Lockheed arl inCorp.29 Cal.4th 134, 151 2003), ndprivatendividualscannot eek amagesor unfairbusinessractices nder$ 17200.Brownv.Al lstatens.Co. 17F. Supp. d 1134, 140 S.D.Cal. 99B). Here,here s noallegation 1'economicnjuryasa result f f iaudor unf-air ompetition y DCIS.Branick . DowneySav.andLoanAss'n 39 Cal.4th235,240 2006); eealsoKwiksetCorp. . Superior ourt , l Cal.4th310,323-26201 ).

K. Ptaintiff s NineteenthClaim, For NegligentInf l ict ionof Emotional nd MentalDistress.Must Fai l

Outside f the context f aplaintiffwho witnessed n njury o a closefarni ly nembcr,eeGu v. BMW of NorthAm..LLC,132 Cal.App. 4th 195',204(2005),here s no independentort of negligentnflictionof emotional istress.Potter . Firestone ire & RubberCo. 6 Cal.4th965,984 1993).Thus, o makeouta clairnof negligentnflictionof emotional istress, laintiffsmustplead hetraditional lements f negligence,ncluding uty,breach, ausationnddamagesSee .g.,Essv. EskatonProps.97 Cal.App.4th 120,126 2002).

Plaintiffshave ailed o allege hatDCIS owes hemanyduty. Indeed,"[t]here s no duty to avoidnegligently ausing motionaldistresso another."Potter,6 Cal. 4that 984. Thus, unless he defendant asassumed duty o

2 l



33/34

I2345o789

t 0l l1 21 aI - )

l 4l 5l 61 ' 7

l 8l 9202 122:-)a l_+25262728

plaintiff n which theemotional onditionof theplaintiff is an object, ecoverysavailable nly if the emotional istress rises ut of the defendant's reach fsomeother egalduty and he emotional istresss proximately aused y thatbreach f duty." Id. at 985. A legaldutymaybe mposed y law,be assumedythedefendant, r existby virtue of a special elationshipwhich s clearly elatedotheplaintiff s mental r emotional ell-being,Gu, 132Cal.App. 4that207,orpersonalelat ionships.r l ich . Menezes,2lCal.4th543,559 1999).No suchrelationship r independentuty s (or couldbe)alleged. n addition,here s nocoherent llegations f unintentionalreach y DCIS.

L. PlaintiffsTwentiethClaim, For Res psaZaazilor. s Not LegallvCognizable

This claim ailsRule 12(b)(6) ecausees psa oquitor s not a legallycognizablelaim. Respsa oquitor s a ruleof evidence hichallows heplaintiff, n theabsence r directproof, o argue hatan accidentwasof suchanature hat he njury wasmoreprobably hannot theresultof the defendant'snegl igence. ick ing . K imber l in ,170 al .App.3d73,75 1985) ; ac i f - rce l .&Tel .Co.v . Ci tyof Lodi ,58Cal .App.2d888,895 1943)( " respsa oqui tur ru leisnot a ruleof substantiveaw mposingiability n the absence f negligenceutis a ruleof evidence iving ise o an nference f negligencen ceftain ases");Cal.Evid.Code$ 646(b).To takeadvantagef thisrule of evidence, laintiffsmustallege hat 1 theaccident asof a kind whichordinarily oesnot occur ntheabsencef someone'segligen e, 2) heaccident ascaused y anagency rinstrurnentalityithin heexclusive ontrolof thedefendant,nd 3) heaccidentmustnot havebeendue o any voluntaryactionor contributionon thepartof thepla in t i f f - . oreno . Sayre, I62 al .App.3d 116,123 1984) .

Takenasa claimfor negligence,ncorrectly leadedn violationof Rule8andduplicative f theirclaim or negligentnflictionof emotional istress,hisclaimmust ail alonewith Plaintiffs'nineteenth laim. In addition, here s no

22



34/34

I2345o789

l 0l 11 2l 3t 41 5l 6t 71 81 9201 122

242.52627

allegationhat anyprivate nformationwaswithin DCIS's exclusive ontrol; o thcontrary,Plaintiffsspecifically llege hat t was within Reedand ntelius'sexclusive ontrol.

CONCLUSIONFor reasons nownonly to Plaintiffs, heyhaveattemptedo expandhe

politically-basedattles etweenhemselvesndOrly Taitzto a number fentities,ncludingDCIS,whichhaveno role or interestn theirdifferences. stheCourtnoted n the OracleDecision, laintiffs'prolix,scattershotAC"threatenso spiralout of control." Plaintiffs' ransparent ttempt o do indirectlythatwhich hey cannotdo directly i.e., o assert aselessttacks gainstDCIS asa substitutebr fbrmerdefendant osefTaitz- shouldberejected.All ofPlaintiffs' laimsagainst CIS fail to meet he standardsf Rules8 and 2(bX6).

Def-endant CIS therefore espectfullyequestshat he Courtdismiss heCornplaint ithout eave o amend ndwith prejudice.

PRYOR CASHMAN LLP

/s/ Michael J. IttiborskiMichael .NiborskiI801 CenturyParkEast, 4thFloorLosAngeles,CA 90067-2302mn bo sk @pry rcashman. omTom J.Ferber7 TimesSquareNew York, New York [email protected] DefendantsDavlisht Chemical Information S stems,nc.


Documents

LIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) - 412 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Defendant Daylight Chemical Information Systems, Inc. - gov.uscourts.cacd.497989.412.0