Court Opinion

ID: 9364931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 18:00:36.426918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:41.423585
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 20 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JACK GERSHFELD, individually, and on            No.    21-55753
behalf of a class of similarly situated,
                                                D.C. No.
                Plaintiff-Appellant,            8:21-cv-00058-CJC-ADS

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
TEAMVIEWER US, INC.; DOES, 1 through
100, inclusive,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                   Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding

                       Argued and Submitted July 11, 2022
                              Pasadena, California

Before: BENNETT and SUNG, Circuit Judges, and FOOTE,** District Judge.

      Plaintiff-Appellant Jack Gershfeld challenges the dismissal of his amended

complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Gershfeld alleges

Defendant-Appellee TeamViewer US violated California’s Consumer Privacy Act

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
            The Honorable Elizabeth E. Foote, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
and Unfair Competition Law when it automatically renewed his software

subscription without his consent. On appeal, he contends the district court erred

when it considered documents incorporated by reference that were not included

with or attached to his complaint. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

and affirm the dismissal.

      We review a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under a de

novo standard of review. Colony Cove Props., LLC v. City of Carson, 640 F.3d

948, 955 (9th Cir. 2011). A district court’s decision to allow documents to be

incorporated by reference is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Khoja v. Orexigen

Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 998 (9th Cir. 2018).

      Generally, a district court is permitted to “look only at the face of the

complaint to decide a motion to dismiss.” J.K.J. v. City of San Diego, 42 F.4th

990, 997 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Van Buskirk v. Cable News Network, Inc., 284

F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2002)). However, under the incorporation by reference

doctrine, a district court may consider other material as though it had been attached

to the complaint itself. Khoja, 899 F.3d at 1002. A document can be incorporated

by reference if the complaint refers to it extensively or if the document forms the

basis of the plaintiff’s claims. United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir.

2003); see also Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining the

“court may consider evidence on which the complaint ‘necessarily relies.’”).

                                          2
      The district court below did not abuse its discretion in incorporating by

reference the exhibits submitted in connection with TeamViewer US’s motion to

dismiss. The incorporated documents, which set forth the relevant terms and

disclosures of the subscription purchase and renewal, form the basis of the

transaction Gershfeld challenged in his complaint. Gershfeld’s claims necessarily

rely on the contents of the exhibits attached by TeamViewer US. The viability of

Gershfeld’s claims is dependent upon the extent and sufficiency of TeamViewer

US’s disclosures; as such, the disclosures form the basis of the claims themselves.

See Coto Settlement v. Eisenberg, 593 F.3d 1031, 1038 (9th Cir. 2010) (though not

referenced in complaint, billing agreement was incorporated by reference because

its terms were integral to claims in complaint).

      In light of the incorporated material, Gershfeld did not plead a plausible

claim for a violation of either California’s Consumer Privacy Act or its Unfair

Competition Law, nor did he plausibly plead a claim for any violation of

California’s automatic renewal law. Gershfeld was put on notice, both initially and

thereafter, of the automatic renewal and the terms thereof; he was informed of the

software subscription price, the price increase upon renewal, the cancellation

policy, and the cancellation process. Gershfeld consented to the terms of the

purchase, which were presented in a clear and conspicuous manner, and authorized

TeamViewer US to renew his software subscription automatically.

                                          3
      The district court did not improperly weigh conflicting evidence or make

any credibility findings in favor of TeamViewer US.

      Finally, we agree with the district court’s denial of leave to amend, a decision

which “is proper if it is clear that the complaint could not be saved by amendment.”

Somers v. Apple, Inc., 729 F.3d 953, 960 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Kendall v. Visa

U.S.A., Inc., 518 F.3d 1042, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008)).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          4