Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01649/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01649-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nathan Thoms
Plaintiff
Walgreen Co.
Defendant

Document Text:

MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

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 

LAS99 1699629-1.007341.0046

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT WALGREEN CO.’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF NATHAN THOMS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

NATHAN THOMS, on behalf of 

himself and all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WALGREEN CO., an Illinois 

Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, 

inclusive, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 2:08-cv-01649-JAM-DAD 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT 

WALGREEN CO.’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS PLAINTIFF NATHAN 

THOMS’ FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:08-cv-01649-JAM-DAD Document 24 Filed 09/15/08 Page 1 of 3
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

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 

LAS99 1699629-1.007341.0046

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT WALGREEN CO.’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF NATHAN THOMS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

On September 3, 2008, the Motion of defendant Walgreen Co. to dismiss the 

First Amended Complaint of plaintiff Nathan Thoms (“Motion”), pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), came on regularly for hearing. Plaintiff 

Nathan Thoms (“Plaintiff”) appeared through his counsel of record James M. 

Lindsay of Lindsay & Stonebarger. Defendant Walgreen Co. appeared through its 

counsel of record Francisca M. Mok of McDermott Will & Emery LLP. The Court, 

having considered the Motion and all papers in support of and in opposition thereto, 

including the parties’ requests for judicial notice and any opposition thereto, and 

having heard oral argument of counsel and good cause appearing therefore: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for violations 

of California Civil Code section 1747.08 is DENIED. The Court finds that a zip 

code constitutes “personal identification information” under the plain language of 

that term’s definition, set forth in California Civil Code section 1747.08(b). 

2. The Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action for 

violations of California Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq. 

(“UCL”) is GRANTED with prejudice. The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to 

plead that he “has lost money or property” as a result of the alleged conduct, as 

required by California Business & Professions Code section 17204. Buckland v. 

Threshold Enterprises Ltd., 155 Cal. App. 4th 798, 817 (2004) (to state a claim 

under the UCL a plaintiff must allege a “loss[ ] of money or property that [is] 

eligible for restitution.”). Plaintiff cannot cure this deficiency by amendment. 

3. The Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action for invasion 

of a privacy interest protected by the California Constitution is DENIED. Plaintiff 

has sufficiently pled each of the elements required to state a claim, i.e., (1) a 

legally-protected privacy interest; (2) Plaintiff’s reasonable expectation of privacy; 

and (3) a serious invasion of the privacy interest. Hill v. National Collegiate 

Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal. 4th 1, 35-37 (1994). 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:08-cv-01649-JAM-DAD Document 24 Filed 09/15/08 Page 2 of 3
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

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 

LAS99 1699629-1.007341.0046 -2-

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT WALGREEN CO.’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF NATHAN THOMS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

4. Defendant Walgreen Co.’s request for judicial notice of legislative 

history related to California Civil Code section 1747.08 is DENIED as moot. 

Walgreen Co.’s request that the Court take judicial notice of information from the 

United States Census of 2000 regarding the population and number of housing units 

in zip codes 95814 and 95823 at the time of that census is DENIED as moot. 

5. Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of certain California trial court 

orders and other materials is DENIED, except that the Court does take judicial 

notice of the fact that some California Superior Courts have previously considered 

whether a zip code constitutes “personal identification information” for purposes of 

California Civil Code section 1747.08. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 15, 2008 /s/ John A. Mendez_______

Honorable John A. Mendez 

United States District Judge 

SUBMITTED BY: 

McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 

FRANCISCA M. MOK 

By: /s/ Francisca M. Mok 

FRANCISCA M. MOK 

Attorneys for Defendant 

 WALGREEN CO. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:08-cv-01649-JAM-DAD Document 24 Filed 09/15/08 Page 3 of 3