Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01428/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01428-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Heidi Dorr
Plaintiff
Yahoo! Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HEIDI DORR,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

YAHOO! INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C07-01428 MJJ

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss. (Docket No. 5.) For the following

reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Heidi Dorr’s amended class action complaint (“Complaint”) alleges that, after

becoming a subscriber to Defendant Yahoo! Inc.’s email service known as Y!PA, her emails sent

from the Y!PA account contained promotional taglines even though Yahoo! made representations

that they would not. On behalf of a nationwide class of current and former subscribers to Y!PA,

Plaintiff alleges violation of various consumer protection and false advertising laws.

Defendant’s present motion to dismiss challenges only Plaintiff’s causes of action for breach

of contract and unjust enrichment – the fourth and fifth claims, respectively, in the Complaint – on

the grounds that neither states a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Case 3:07-cv-01428-WHA Document 18 Filed 07/30/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the legal

sufficiency of a claim. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Because the focus of a

Rule 12(b)(6) motion is on the legal sufficiency, rather than the substantive merits of a claim, the

Court ordinarily limits its review to the face of the complaint. See Van Buskirk v. Cable News

Network, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2002). In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court

accepts the plaintiff’s material allegations in the complaint as true and construes them in the light

most favorable to the plaintiff. See Shwarz v. United States, 234 F.3d 428, 435 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Generally, dismissal is proper only when the plaintiff has failed to assert a cognizable legal theory or

failed to allege sufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. See SmileCare Dental Group v.

Delta Dental Plan of Cal., Inc., 88 F.3d 780, 782 (9th Cir. 1996); Balisteri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,

901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988); Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 534 (9th

Cir. 1984). In pleading sufficient facts, however, a plaintiff must suggest his or her right to relief is

more than merely conceivable, but plausible on its face. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127

S.Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007).

ANALYSIS

A. Plaintiff’s Breach Of Contract Claim Is Adequately Pleaded.

Defendant alleges that, because Plaintiff cannot identify any provision in the applicable

terms of service that Defendant allegedly breached, Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim must fail. 

Though Plaintiff did not attach the terms of service to her Complaint, Defendant contends that the

Court may take judicial notice of the copies of the terms of service submitted by Defendant because

they are referenced by, and central to, the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint. The Court finds

Defendant’s arguments unavailing for several reasons.

First, Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege, as Defendants contend, that the contractual

relationship is governed solely by the two documents which Defendants ask the Court to recognize

through judicial notice – the general Terms of Service (“TOS”) and the Yahoo! Mail Personal

Address Terms of Service (“ATOS”). Although the Complaint does allege that subscribers to Y!PA

“agreed to the Terms of Service” (Complaint ¶ 62), the Complaint also alleges that Plaintiff’s

Case 3:07-cv-01428-WHA Document 18 Filed 07/30/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

agreement with Defendant embraces other written promises made in the course of dealing. For

example, the Complaint alleges that Defendant’s offer, and the ultimate agreement, “represented to

consumers that email sends from one of Yahoo!’s premium email accounts would not have

advertising or taglines attached.” (Complaint ¶ 7.) The Complaint also alleges the specific wording

of at least two written documents that Plaintiff alleges form part of the agreement:

• a written offer indicating “[t]here are no ads or promotional taglines in the messages

you send” (Complaint ¶ 7); and

• a confirming receipt stating there would be “no ads in emails.” (Complaint ¶ 10.)

While Defendant may ultimately be able to prove that these additional written documents did

not constitute part of the contractual relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant, it is improper to

resolve this disputed factual issue at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage. Plaintiff’s allegations that the terms of

these additional written documents were breached are adequate to survive a motion to dismiss. 

Second, the Court finds it inappropriate to consider the contents of the May 2007 versions of

the TOS and ATOS submitted by Defendant because the parties dispute whether these versions

accurately reflect the terms of service that governed Plaintiff’s purchase of the Y!PA service in July

2006. Defendants concede that the May 2007 versions of the TOS and ATOS differ in at least some

respects from the versions that would have applied to a July 2006 purchase. At the pleadings stage,

this Court will not consider the contents of documents outside the Complaint that are not

indisputably the basis for the alleged contract. See BJC Health System v. Columbia Cas. Co., 348

F.3d 685, 687 (8th Cir. 2003); Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 153 (2d Cir. 2002).

Third, even the copies of the TOS and ATOS that Defendant submits to the Court do not, as

Defendant contends, expressly limit the scope of the contractual relationship to those two

documents. The first paragraph of the ATOS (quoted by Defendant in its brief) does not contain an

integration clause and does not exclude other agreements from governing the contractual

relationship. (Defendant’s Request For Judicial Notice, Exh. B, ¶ 1.) Thus, even if the Court took

judicial notice of the contents of the TOS and ATOS submitted by Defendants, dismissal would not

be warranted.

B. Plaintiff Has Adequately Pleaded A Claim For Restitution.

Case 3:07-cv-01428-WHA Document 18 Filed 07/30/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action is entitled “UNJUST ENRICHMENT” and alleges that

Defendant was unjustly enriched by charging fees for the Y!PA service and that Plaintiff (and the

putative class) are entitled to equitable restitution of these fees. (Complaint ¶¶ 70-75.) Defendant

contends that “unjust enrichment” is not an actionable claim for relief under California law.

Plaintiff acknowledges that her fifth cause of action may have been mislabeled, but asks that

this Court construe the claim instead as a claim for restitution. It is appropriate to do so. California

law recognizes a cause of action for restitution (sometimes also called unjust enrichment), a

quasi-contractual form of common count for money had and received to recover money paid by

fraud or mistake. McBride v. Boughton, 123 Cal. App. 4th 379, 388 (2004); First Nationwide

Savings v. Perry, 11 Cal. App. 4th 1657, 1670 (1992); 1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law, Contracts, §

1013. In her Complaint, Plaintiff has adequately alleged that unjust enrichment occurred and has

adequately pleaded a basis for restitution on a quasi-contract or quantum meruit theory.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-01428-WHA Document 18 Filed 07/30/07 Page 4 of 4