Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-02573/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-02573-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LEGALFORCE RAPC WORLDWIDE P.C., ET 

AL., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

UPCOUNSEL, INC., 

Defendant.

CASE NO. 18-cv-02573-YGR 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING 

IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 25 

Defendant UpCounsel, Inc. (“UpCounsel”) filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs LegalForce 

RAPC Worldwide, P.C.’s and LegalForce, Inc.’s complaint on July 20, 2018. (Dkt. No. 25.) The 

Court heard argument on August 28, 2018. Having carefully considered the pleadings and the 

papers submitted on UpCounsel’s motion, and the hearing held on August 28, 2018, and as stated 

on the record on August 28, 2018, the Court ORDERS as follows: 

 Plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory judgment is DISMISSED as duplicative in light of 

plaintiffs’ counsel’s statement at oral argument that it is not in fact a separate cause 

of action but rather a remedy sought. See Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 766 

(9th Cir. 2007). 

 UpCounsel’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ Lanham Act claim based on lack of 

standing is DENIED. 

 Plaintiffs’ Lanham Act claim is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND to the extent 

it is based on the statement that UpCounsel is the “equivalent to the world’s largest 

virtual law firm.” 

 UpCounsel’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ Lanham Act claim to the extent it is 

based on UpCounsel’s fee disclosures is DENIED. 

 Plaintiffs’ Lanham Act claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND to the 

Case 4:18-cv-02573-YGR Document 42 Filed 08/29/18 Page 1 of 3
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

extent it is based on UpCounsel’s use and/or purchase of keywords for online 

searches, such as “trademark attorney” and “trademark lawyer.” 

 UpCounsel’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ Lanham Act claim to the extent it is 

based on the “Top 5% of Trademark Attorneys” statement is DENIED. 

 UpCounsel’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ FAL and UCL claims based on lack of 

standing is DENIED. 

 Plaintiffs’ UCL claim under the unlawful prong is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND. 

 To the extent plaintiffs’ UCL claims under the unfair and fraudulent prongs are 

based on conduct that forms the basis of plaintiffs’ Lanham Act claim, they are 

DISMISSED in accordance with the Court’s aforementioned rulings.1 

 Plaintiffs’ request for restitution under the UCL is STRICKEN. See Korea Supply 

Co. v. Lockheed Martin Co., 29 Cal. 4th 1134, 1151 (2003) (noting that 

“[c]ompensation for a lost business opportunity is a measure of damages and not 

restitution to the alleged victims” under the UCL) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). 

\\ 

\\ 

\\ 

\\ 

\\ 

\\ 

 1

 As a general matter, to the extent any of plaintiffs’ claims under the UCL sound in fraud, 

plaintiffs must plead actual reliance when amending their complaint. See Sateriale v. R.J. 

Reynolds Tobacco Co., 697 F.3d 777, 793 (9th Cir. 2012) (where a UCL claim “sounds in fraud, 

[the plaintiff is] required to prove actual reliance on the allegedly deceptive or misleading 

statements”); see also O’Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc., 58 F. Supp. 3d 989, 1003 (N.D. Cal. 2014) 

(claim that “sounded in fraud” would “require pleading actual reliance whether asserted under the 

fraudulent prong under the UCL or as predicate unlawfulness under the unlawful prong”) (internal 

quotation marks omitted); Kane v. Chobani, Inc., No. 12-CV-02425-LHK, 2013 WL 5289253, at 

*6 (N.D. Cal. (“[T]he actual reliance requirement also applies to claims under the UCL’s unfair 

prong to the extent such claims are based on fraudulent conduct.”).

Case 4:18-cv-02573-YGR Document 42 Filed 08/29/18 Page 2 of 3
3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

 Plaintiffs’ unopposed request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 26-1.) 

The Court takes judicial notice merely over what was in the public realm at the 

time, not whether the contents of the cited websites are in fact true. 

This Order terminates Docket Number 25. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 29, 2018 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:18-cv-02573-YGR Document 42 Filed 08/29/18 Page 3 of 3