Source: https://de.scribd.com/document/56490857/Sams-v-Yahoo-CV-10-5897-JF-HRL-N-D-Cal-May-18-2011
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 16:44:15+00:00

Document:
Court dismisses putative class action claims against Yahoo! for allegedly improper disclosure of user information in response to a subpoena.
24 of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701, et seq. (“Stored Communications Act”); (3) violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof.
This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports.
8 voluntarily filed the FAC and concurrently filed a motion to transfer the action to this Court. (Id.
28 respond timely to the FAC she is entitled to default judgment.
15 December 2008. (Granick Decl., Ex. 3 (emphasis in original); see also Mot. to Dismiss, 4:6-8).
17 Granick Decl., Ex.’s 2 & 3; Mot. to Dismiss, 4-10).
3 cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.” Mendiondo v.
13 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995).
25 Sams’s request for entry of default. See Kipkirwa v. Santa Clara County Probation Dept., 2 Fed.
6 motion to dismiss on its merits.
Feiner and Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 155 n. 19 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Amfac Mtg. Corp. v.
Arizona Mall of Tempe, 583 F.2d 426 (9th Cir. 1978)).
6 subpoena” and thus cannot rely on the defense. Finally, she contends that Yahoo!
motion to dismiss where the defense is “apparent from the face of the [c]omplaint.” Goddard v.
establish that ground . . . .”). Sams’s pleading itself raises questions as to whether Yahoo!
information, and whether it complied fully with the terms of the subpoena. Id.
6 condition has been met here.
13 between the various prosecuting authorities in order to compel out-of-state witnesses to testify.
22 the grand jury investigation is, at a time and place specified in the subpoena.” Id.
24 produce documents by out-of-state subpoenas. (Pl.’s Opp., 17: 8-11 (citing People v.
Georgia’s version of the Uniform Act is codified in Ga. Code. Ann. § 24-10-94(a).
19 (Def.’s Reply, 9:13-15.) Yahoo! points out that in Tamburo v. Dworkin, No. 04-C-3317 (N.D.
2 not support a post hoc finding that Yahoo! failed to comply with the terms of the subpoena.
4 the person viewed.” See United States v. Forrester, 512 F.3d 500, 510 (9th Cir. 2008).
11 suggests that the information subject to that provision is not content-based.
22 555 (2007). Here, Sams’s allegations are both conclusory and devoid of factual support.
28 leave to amend will be granted.
3 AMEND. Any amended complaint shall be filed within (30) days of the date of this order.
Bible Believers v. Wayne County, et al.
AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE INITIATIVE; PAMELA GELLER; ROBERT SPENCER, Plaintiffs,-v.- COMPLAINT KING COUNTY, Defendant.
Adaptix v. Asustek Et. Al.

References: v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 § 24
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.