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

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION: UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441(A) 

(FEDERAL QUESTION) / CASE NO. 3:17-CV-00359 

DURIE TANGRI LLP 

SONAL N. MEHTA (SBN 222086) 

smehta@durietangri.com 

LAURA E. MILLER (SBN 271713) 

lmiller@durietangri.com 

CATHERINE Y. KIM (SBN 308442) 

ckim@durietangri.com 

217 Leidesdorff Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: 415-362-6666 

Facsimile: 415-236-6300 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Facebook, Inc. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SIX4THREE, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FACEBOOK, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00359 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION: 

UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441(A) 

(FEDERAL QUESTION) 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 1 Filed 01/24/17 Page 1 of 5
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

 1

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION: UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441(A) 

(FEDERAL QUESTION) / CASE NO. 3:17-CV-00359 

TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) hereby removes to this 

Court the state court action described below. 

On April 10, 2015, an action was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for 

the County of San Mateo entitled Six4Three, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., case number CIV53328, attached 

hereto as Exhibit A. After demurrer practice, Plaintiff Six4Three LLC (“Six4Three”) filed a Second 

Amended Complaint on February 26, 2016. A copy of the Second Amended Complaint is attached 

hereto as Exhibit B. 

On January 12, 2017, Six4Three served verified interrogatory responses in which Six4Three 

disclosed that it intends to present the violation of numerous federal statues, including federal antitrust 

statutes providing for exclusive federal jurisdiction, as the predicate unlawful acts for its claim that 

Facebook has violated California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. (“Section 17200”). 

A copy of the interrogatory responses is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 

The balance of the Superior Court case file is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 

I. JURISDICTION 

This action is a civil action of which this Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction under, 

among other things, Section 4 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 4) and Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 

U.SC. § 15), and is one which may be removed to this Court by Defendant pursuant to the provisions of 

28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1441(a) in that it arises under federal antitrust law. 

II. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 

As this action arose in the City and County of San Mateo, assignment to the San Francisco 

Division of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California is proper. 

III. SIX4THREE’S VERIFIED INTERROGATORY RESPONSE REVEALS THAT ITS 

SECTION 17200 CLAIM IS BASED ON FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAW

Six4Three’s Second Amended Complaint purports to state four causes of action: intentional 

interference with contractual relations, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 1 Filed 01/24/17 Page 2 of 5
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

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION: UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441(A) 

(FEDERAL QUESTION) / CASE NO. 3:17-CV-00359 

negligent misrepresentation, and violations of Section 17200.1 The parties have been proceeding in the 

Superior Court, with discovery ongoing. As part of the discovery process, Facebook propounded an 

interrogatory asking Six4Three to “State ALL laws that YOU contend Facebook’s conduct violates 

RELATED TO YOUR claim for violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.” On 

January 12, 2017, Six4Three responded to the interrogatory and identified the alleged violation of a 

number of federal antitrust laws as the predicate for unlawful acts for Six4Three’s Section 17200 claims: 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party responds that 

its analysis, investigation and discovery are ongoing and it does not intend to limit 

evidence at trial to matters stated herein. Facebook’s conduct repeatedly violates 

Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. by engaging in: (l) unlawful business acts 

or practices; (2) unfair business acts or practices; (3) fraudulent business acts or practices; 

(4) unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising; and (5) business acts or practices 

prohibited by §§ 17500-l7577.5. Further, Facebook's conduct repeatedly violates 

Business and Professions Code §§ 17500 et seq., which prohibits advertising goods or 

services that Facebook knew or should have known were likely to deceive, Facebook’s 

conduct also repeatedly violates California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. 

Code §§ 1750 et seq.) protecting consumers against unfair and deceptive business 

practices (Cal. Civ. Code § 1760) and various violations of Cal. Civ. Code 1770. Finally, 

Facebook’s conduct repeatedly violates Business and Professions Code §§ 16600 et seq. 

prohibiting contracts that restrain engagement in a lawful profession, trade or business of 

any kind. 

Facebook’s conduct also violates Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 

U.S.C. § 45) prohibiting unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and 

unfair or deceptive practices in or affecting commerce, Facebook’s conduct further 

violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibiting contracts in restraint of trade of 

commerce. Facebook's conduct further repeatedly violates Section 2 of the Sherman Act

prohibiting the monopolization or attempt to monopolize any part of the trade or 

commerce among states. Facebook's conduct further repeatedly violates Section 2 of the 

Clayton Act, the Robinson-Patman Price Discrimination Act, prohibiting discrimination 

of price between different purchasers where the effect is to lessen competition or tend to 

create a monopoly, Facebook’s conduct further repeatedly violates Section 3 of the 

Clayton Act prohibiting agreements that require avoidance of services or goods from 

competitors that tend to create a monopoly or lessen competition. Facebook’s conduct 

further repeatedly violates the Cartwright Act, Business and Professions Code §§ 16720 

et seq., prohibiting trusts or actions in concert in restraint of trade or commerce. 

Facebook’s violations further include numerous per se violations resulting from tying 

agreements with a host of third parties. 

Finally, Facebook’s conduct violates numerous other state laws that are accessible via 

Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq., including but not limited to New York 

General Business Law §§ 349 et seq. prohibiting deceptive acts or practices in conduct of 

any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service. Facebook’s conduct 

further violates Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. by reason of its tortious 

conduct, including but not limited to constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation of 

 

1

 The Second Amended Complaint also includes a claim for promissory estoppel. On June 28, 2016, 

Facebook’s demurrer was sustained as to this claim without leave to amend. 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 1 Filed 01/24/17 Page 3 of 5
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

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION: UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441(A) 

(FEDERAL QUESTION) / CASE NO. 3:17-CV-00359 

material fact, intentional interference with contract and intentional interference with 

prospective business relations. 

Exhibit C at 5–6 (emphasis added). 

After receiving Six4Three’s interrogatory response, counsel for Facebook approached Six4Three 

to confirm that Six4Three in fact intended to pursue all of the federal and state claims identified in its 

interrogatory response. Exhibit E. Facebook’s counsel noted that it would understand Six4Three to be 

pursuing all such claims if it did not hear otherwise from Six4Three by January 23. Six4Three did not 

respond, confirming that it is in fact relying upon the violation of federal laws, including federal antitrust 

laws, as the predicate for its Section 17200 claims. 

IV. SIX4THREE’S CONTENTIONS CONFIRM THAT THIS MATTER SHOULD BE 

REMOVED TO FEDERAL COURT.

“[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have 

original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the 

United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1441(a). “The several district courts of the United States are invested with jurisdiction to prevent and 

restrain violations of sections 1 to 7 of” the Sherman Act. 15 U.S.C. § 4. “[A]ny person who shall be 

injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor 

in any district court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found or has 

an agent . . . .” 15 U.S.C. § 15. 

Pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) “if the case stated by the initial pleading is not removable, a 

notice of removal may be filed within thirty days after receipt by the defendant, through service or 

otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be 

ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable.” This notice of removal is being filed 

within thirty days of Six4Three’s interrogatory responses disclosing Six4Three’s reliance on federal 

antitrust laws as the predicate for its Section 17200 claim. 

Because Six4Three’s Section 17200 claim arises under federal antitrust law, it is necessarily 

federal in character, and presents substantial, disputed questions of federal antitrust law. See, e.g., 

National Credit Reporting Ass’n, v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., No. C04-01661 WHA, 2004 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 1 Filed 01/24/17 Page 4 of 5
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

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION: UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441(A) 

(FEDERAL QUESTION) / CASE NO. 3:17-CV-00359 

WL 1888769 (N.D. Cal. July 21, 2004). 

V. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, this matter is properly removed to federal court, exclusive 

jurisdiction. 

Dated: January 24, 2017 

By:

DURIE TANGRI LLP 

/s/ Laura E. Miller

 LAURA E. MILLER 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Facebook, Inc.

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 1 Filed 01/24/17 Page 5 of 5