Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/92597743/Leong-v-Carrier-IQ-CV-12-01562-C-D-Cal-Apr-27-2012
Timestamp: 2013-05-24 17:30:01
Document Index: 774301451

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 630', '§ 17200', '§ 2510', '§ 2701', '§ 1407', '§ 1331', '§ 631', '§ 17200']

Leong v. Carrier IQ CV 12-01562 (C.D. Cal.; Apr. 27, 2012)
LINKS: 13 (12-1562); 12 (12-1564)
Case No.CV 12-01562 GAF (MRWx)CV 12-01564 GAF (MRWx)DateApril 27, 2012TitleCindy Leong v. Carrier IQ Inc et alCarey Eckert v. Carrier IQ Inc et al
Present: TheHonorable
Renee FisherNoneN/ADeputy ClerkCourt Reporter / RecorderTape No.Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:Attorneys Present for Defendants: NoneNone
Proceedings: (In Chambers)ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO REMAND
Plaintiffs initiated this class action lawsuit in state court. Defendants removed to federalcourt on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Defendants contend that the issues presentedin this lawsuit are completely pre-empted by the Federal Wiretap Act. Plaintiffs contend thatthere is no controlling authority for that proposition, that the case is a local controversy thatarises under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and move to have the action remanded tostate court. For reasons discussed in greater detail below, the Court concludes that the FederalWiretap Act does not completely pre-empt the relevant field and that the motion is thereforemeritorious.
These cases are identical putative class actions brought against Defendant Carrier IQ, Inc.(“Carrier IQ”), which developed and maintains a software that is installed on cell phones andsurreptitiously records the user’s keystrokes, text messages and passwords without the user’sknowledge or consent. (Leong Docket No. 1, Eckert Docket No. 1 [Not. of Removal], Ex. A.[First Amend. Compl. (“FAC”)] ¶ 2.) Plaintiffs allege that they are California residents who arevictims of the secret harvesting of their cell phone communications. They contend that thesecret, non-consensual collection of their private data violates California’s Invasion of Privacy
Case 2:12-cv-01564-GAF-MRW Document 17 Filed 04/27/12 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:172
At the same time, Plaintiff’s counsel filed three other substantially similar class actions. (Second Newby Decl. ¶ 7.) On February 21, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a declaration in support of dismissal of these actions,and they were dismissed on February 28, 2012. (Id. ¶¶ 12, 20.)
Act, Cal. Penal Code §§ 630 et seq., and constitutes an unlawful business practice within themeaning of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 etseq. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 5, 14, 19–21.).The information supporting this lawsuit was apparently first disclosed in November 2011when an individual posted on an Internet blog allegations that Carrier IQ’s software, which isinstalled on various manufacturer’s cell phones, collects the contents of cell phone users’electronic communications without their knowledge. (Leong Docket No. 16-1, Eckert Docket No. 13-1 [Second Newby Decl.] ¶ 1.) Since December 1, 2011, 72 federal class actions have been filed in more than 25 judicial districts naming Carrier IQ and various cell phonemanufacturers as defendants and alleging similar claims under the Federal Wiretap Act, 18U.S.C. §§ 2510 et seq., which is part of the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act(“ECPA”) (“Consumer Privacy Cases”). (Not. of Removal ¶ 4; Second Newby Decl. ¶ 2; LeongDocket No. 3, Eckert Docket No. 3 [Newby Decl.] ¶¶ 2–3.) Some of these cases includeadditional claims, based on the same underlying facts, for violations of the StoredCommunications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq., and state privacy, consumer, and business laws. (Second Newby Decl. ¶ 2 n.1.) On December 2 and 9, 2011, the plaintiffs in twosuch cases filed separate motions with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation(“JMPL”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, to transfer and consolidate related actions to the Northern District of California or to the District Court of Delaware. (Second Newby Decl. ¶¶3–4; Newby Decl. ¶ 4.) On March 29, 2012, the MDL panel heard oral argument on thesemotions, and no party opposed transfer of the Consumer Privacy Cases to a single court for pre-trial coordination. (Second Newby Decl. ¶¶ 4–5; Newby Decl. ¶¶ 5–6.)Plaintiffs filed the present actions in Los Angeles Superior Court on December 2, 2011 inthe midst of this litigation flurry. Their original state court complaints alleged the sameCalifornia law causes of action on behalf of a nationwide class. (Second Newby Decl. ¶ 7, Ex.A [Compl.] ¶ 22.) On December 6, 2011, Plaintiffs filed FACs alleging classes of Californiaconsumers only. (FAC ¶ 22.)
In February of 2012, Plaintiffs in each action filed declarationsof dismissal of class action claims against all diverse defendants, leading to their dismissal fromthe actions. (Newby Decl. ¶¶ 9–10.) On February 23, 2012, Carrier IQ removed the actions tothis Court, alleging federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 on the basis that the
Case 2:12-cv-01564-GAF-MRW Document 17 Filed 04/27/12 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:173
Federal Wiretap Act completely preempts California’s Invasion of Privacy Act. (Not. of Removal ¶ 7.) Plaintiffs now move to remand, arguing that the California law is not preempted.(Leong Docket No. 13; Eckert Docket No. 12.) Leong additionally argues that Defendant’sremoval was procedurally improper because it was made without the consent of Research inMotion Corporation, which remained a defendant in the state court action at the time of removal.(Leong Mem. at 6.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court
Plaintiffs’ motions. II.DISCUSSIONA.
ATTER J
REEMPTION
“‘Pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, federal law can preempt and displace state law through: (1) express preemption; (2) field preemption (sometimesreferred to as complete preemption); and (3) conflict preemption.’” In re Google Inc. StreetView Electronic Comm’ns Litig., 794 F. Supp. 2d 1067, 1084 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (quoting Ting v.AT&T, 319 F.3d 1126, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “‘Express preemption exists where Congressenacts an explicit statutory command that state law be displaced.’” Id. (same). Complete or field preemption may be found “when the federal statutory scheme is sufficiently comprehensiveto infer that Congress left no room for supplementary regulation by the states.” Public UtilityDist. No. 1 of Grays Harbor City Wash. v. IDACORP, Inc., 379 F.3d 641, 647 (9th Cir. 2004).“In all cases, congressional intent to preempt state law must be clear and manifest.” In reCybernetic Servs., Inc., 252 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir. 2001). “Of the three types of preemption,only complete preemption confers federal question jurisdiction.” Lane v. CBS Broadcasting,612 F. Supp. 2d 623, 636 (E.D. Pa. 2009).
California’s Invasion of Privacy Act makes it illegal to “willfully and without the consentof all parties to the communication, or in any unauthorized manner, read[], or attempt[] to read,or to learn the contents or meaning of any message, report, or communication while the same isin transit or passing over any wire, line, or cable, or is being sent from, or received at any placewithin this state.” Cal. Penal Code § 631 (emphasis added). California’s UCL prohibits “anyunlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.Liability for an unlawful business practice under the UCL is essentially derivative; that is, “[a]
Case 2:12-cv-01564-GAF-MRW Document 17 Filed 04/27/12 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:174
SearchSearch History: Searching...Result 00 of 0000 results for result for p. Leong v. Carrier IQ CV 12-01562 (C.D. Cal.; Apr. 27, 2012)Alleged violations of California Invasion of Privacy Act are not preempted by ECPA and SCA. Case raising CA state claims against Carrier IQ remanded to state court.Download or PrintAdd To Collection611Reads0Readcasts0Embed ViewsThis is a private document.
Published byVenkat BalasubramaniFollowSearchTIP Press Ctrl-F⌘F to search anywhere in the document.Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.See Premium PlansInfo and RatingCategory:Business/Law > Court FilingsRating:Upload Date:05/06/2012Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialTags:No tagsFree download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or readfalse online for free.Flag for inappropriate contenthttp://www.scribd.com/doc/92597743/Leong-v-Carrier-IQ-CV-12-01562-C-D-Cal-Apr-27-201205/06/2012pdftextoriginal
Recommended7 p.Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hosp. Serv. Corp., 2-11-cv-3305 (D.N.J.; M...Venkat Balasubramani753 Reads3 p.Motion to File Amicus Brief by Equality CaliforniaMichael Ginsborg893 Reads17 p.Del Vecchio v. Amazon, C11-366RSL (W.D. Wash. June 1, 2012)Venkat Balasubramani755 ReadsRecommended17 p.Del Vecchio v. Amazon, C11-366RSL (W.D. Wash. June 1, 2012)Venkat Balasubramani755 Reads20 p.Project Honey Pot v. Does, 11cv15 (E.D. Va.; May 21, 2012)Venkat Balasubramani821 Reads44 p.IN RE IPHONE APPLICATION LITIG. Order on Motion to DismissEric Goldman1800 Reads8 p.Low v. LinkedIn, 11-CV-01468 (N.D.cal.; Nov. 11, 2011)Venkat Balasubramani882 Reads29 p.Holmes v. Countrywide Financial Corp., et al., 08-CV-00205-R (W.D. ...Venkat Balasubramani1645 Reads8 p.Fraley v. Facebook Rejection of Settlement AgreementEric Goldman3981 Reads2 p.Judge Alsup Follow-up Instructions to GoogleEric Goldman1549 Reads7 p.Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hosp. Serv. Corp., 2-11-cv-3305 (D.N.J.; M...Venkat Balasubramani753 Reads9 p.Special Markets Ins. Consultants v. Lynch, 11 C 9181 (N.D. Ill.; Ma...Venkat Balasubramani577 Reads23 p.HathiTrust OpinionJames Grimmelmann15395 Reads
More From This User24 p.Barshack v. Twitter & Sun Valley - CV 13-293 (Blaine County Dist. C...Venkat Balasubramani345 Reads4 p.Zembezia Films v. Does, C13-0308MJP-RSL (W.D. Wash.; May 9, 2013)Venkat Balasubramani449 Reads10 p.Ajemian v. Yahoo, No. 12-P-178. Norfolk. October 1, 2012. - May 7, ...Venkat Balasubramani318 Reads24 p.Naperville Smartmeter Awareness v City of Naperville (N.D. Ill. Mar...Venkat Balasubramani63 Reads24 p.Rottner v. AVG Techs.Venkat Balasubramani100 Reads12 p.Coinlab v. Mt. Gox - Complaint 2013-05-02 FILEDVenkat Balasubramani165 Reads5 p.SB 5211 - Washington's Employer Social Networking LawVenkat Balasubramani573 Reads18 p.Riding Films v. Does (W.D. Wash.) - Answer and CounterclaimVenkat Balasubramani289 Reads20 p.Harris v. Comscore, 1-11-Cv-05807 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 2, 2013)Venkat Balasubramani229 Reads26 p.Yunker v. Pandora MediaVenkat Balasubramani521 Reads15 p.Hoang v. IMDb.com, C11-1709MJP (W.D. Wash. Mar. 19, 2013)Venkat Balasubramani674 Reads32 p.Eagle v. Morgan (Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law)Venkat Balasubramani1613 Reads16 p.US v. Nosal, CR-08-0237 EMC (N.D. Cal.; Mar. 12, 2013)Venkat Balasubramani488 Reads5 p.Gold v. YouMail, 1:12-cv-0522-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind. Feb. 21, 2013)Venkat Balasubramani430 Reads3 p.Sample Social Media PolicyVenkat Balasubramani448 Reads2 p.Mavrix v. BuzzFeed, CV 12-8715 CAS (RZx) (C.D. Cal.; Jan. 29, 2013)Venkat Balasubramani545 Reads2 p.Senate Bill 5211 (WA)Venkat Balasubramani661 Reads58 p.AFP v. Morel, 10 Civ. 02730 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2013)Venkat Balasubramani2876 Reads42 p.DYAC - Break Media Purchase and Sale AgreementVenkat Balasubramani631 Reads18 p.Studio 159 v. Break MediaVenkat Balasubramani1051 Reads14 p.Pirozzi v. Apple, 12-Cv-01529-YGR (N.D. Cal.; Dec. 20, 2012)Venkat Balasubramani686 Reads25 p.Hoang's Motion for Partial SJVenkat Balasubramani387 Reads4 p.Revised Motion to ApproveVenkat Balasubramani514 Reads28 p.Fraley - Amended SettlementVenkat Balasubramani478 Reads17 p.Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences v. Dunne, 2-12-cv-02032-J...Venkat Balasubramani446 Reads