Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/234866409/Order-Granting-Showmark-Mtn-to-Dismiss-DATED-6-20-14
Timestamp: 2015-06-29 23:54:58
Document Index: 238964048

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1332', '§ 17529', '§ 17200', '§ 17500', '§ 1750', '§ 17529', '§ 17529', '§ 349']

P. 1Order Granting Showmark Mtn to Dismiss-DATED 6-20-14Order Granting Showmark Mtn to Dismiss-DATED 6-20-14Ratings: (0)|Views: 27|Likes: 0Published by Bennet Kelley Botranger v. Showmark Media, LLC, et al., Case No. CV 14-01144 MMM (District Court for the Central District of California). Botranger v. Showmark Media, LLC, et al., Case No. CV 14-01144 MMM (District Court for the Central District of California).More info:Categories:Types, Legal formsPublished by: Bennet Kelley on Jul 23, 2014Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reservedAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/234866409/Order-Granting-Showmark-Mtn-to-Dismiss-DATED-6-20-1401/26/2015pdftextoriginal 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIANICHOLAS BONTRAGER, individuallyand on behalf of all others similarlysituated, Plaintiff, vs.SHOWMARK MEDIA LLC, a Delawarelimited liability company, and DOES 1THROUGH 100, Defendants.)))))))))))))CASE NO. CV 14-01144 MMM (Ex)ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’SMOTION TO DISMISSOn January 8, 2014 Nicholas Bontrager filed this putative class action against Showmark Media, LLC (“Showmark”) and certain fictitious defendants in Los Angeles Superior Court.
Showmark was served on January 14, 2014 and timely removed the case on February 13, 2014,
invoking the court’s jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C.§ 1332(d).
On March 20, 2014, the court entered an order on the parties’ stipulation to allow
Notice of Removal (“Removal”), Docket No. 1 (Feb. 13, 2014), Exh. A (“Complaint”). 2
Removal, ¶ 3. 3
, ¶ 4. Case 2:14-cv-01144-MMM-E Document 33 Filed 06/20/14 Page 1 of 19 Page ID #:236
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728Bontrager to file a first amended complaint.
Bontrager filed an amended complaint on March 21,2014, alleging claims for violation of California’s Commercial Email Law (“CEL”), CaliforniaBusiness & Professions Code § 17529.2(b) and 17529.5(a)(3), California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), California Business & Professions Code § 17200, California’s False AdvertisingLaw (“FAL”), California Business & Professions Code § 17500, and California’s Consumer LegalRemedies Act (“CLRA”), California Civil Code § 1750, et seq.
, as well as a claim for negligent misrepresentation.
On April 7, 2014, Showmark filed a motion to dismiss the first amendedcomplaint.
Bontrager opposes the motion, although in his opposition, he withdraws the first cause of action to the extent it is based on a violation of § 17529.2(b). He also withdraws hisCLRA claim.
The court therefore grants Showmark’s motion to the extent it seeks dismissal of these claims and dismisses Bontrager’s claims under § 17529.2(b) and the CLRA with prejudice.
Order Granting Stipulation for Leave to Amend, Docket No. 13 (Mar. 20, 2014).
First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Docket No. 14 (Mar. 21, 2014).
Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”), Docket No. 19 (Apr. 7, 2014).
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (“Opposition”), Docket No. 25 (May 19, 2014), at 8,13.
The dismissal of these and other claims with prejudice does not affect the rights of putativeclass members to bring a claim under these same statutes in the future. See, e.g., Aguilera v.Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp.
, 223 F.3d 1010, 1013 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2000) (“When a motion ismaintained against an uncertified class, only the named plaintiffs are affected by the ruling. Thereis no res judicata effect as to unnamed members of the purported class”); Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
, Civil Nos. 05CV1660-J (WMc), 06CV2671-J (Wmc), 2007 WL 2669531,*3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2007) (“A court’s order does not bind members of a putative class if noclass action has been certified”); Broida v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc.
, No. 11cv1219–LAB (RBB),2011 WL 6013588, *3 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2011) (granting motion to dismiss and stating “[w]hilethis dismissal is with prejudice as to Broida, it is without prejudice, of course, to some other plaintiff with standing to bring a § 349 claim doing so, either individually or as a putative classaction”). 2
Case 2:14-cv-01144-MMM-E Document 33 Filed 06/20/14 Page 2 of 19 Page ID #:237
Bontrager alleges that on July 8, 2013 at 2:42 a.m., he received an unsolicited commercialemail advertisement from Showmark at his California work email address,Nbontrager@attorneysforconsumers.com.
The subject of the email was “Lawyer Media, TopLawyers in California.”
The body stated:“Mr. Nicholas Bontrager, Your Top Lawyers In California Recognition Previewis now available. As Published In: Lawyer Media, June 2013: To order Click Hereto view your custom web page or enterhttps://www.showmark.com/products.php?pc=9Y4RZZOW in your browser. Your Preview Code is: 9Y4RZZOW[.] The plaque is $159 plus S/H. . . .Your Professional Distinction is worthy of the premier recognition product in themarketplace. Let us turn your distinction into an impressive and elegant work of art, a beautiful addition to adorn your office, lobby or conference room.”
Bontrager alleges that prior to July 8, 2013, he had never emailed Showmark or opted into oneof its email listservs.
Bontrager asserts that when he read the email, he believed it was an announcement of an award or recognition he had received “from a respected legal association or organization.”
Hecontends he believed if he paid Showmark $159, he would receive a plaque memorializing theaward.
Bontrager purportedly attempted to contact Showmark about the source of the “Top
FAC, ¶ 11. 10
, ¶ 11, Exh. 1 (July 8, 2013 email from Showmark to Bontrager).
, ¶ 15.
, ¶ 16.
Case 2:14-cv-01144-MMM-E Document 33 Filed 06/20/14 Page 3 of 19 Page ID #:238