Defendant Twitter, Inc.'S Motion to Dismiss
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Case 3:18-cv-00341-JSC Document 17 Filed 03/20/18 Page 1 of 37 1 DURIE TANGRI LLP JOSHUA H. LERNER (SBN 220755) 2 [email protected] JOSEPH C. GRATZ (SBN 240676) 3 [email protected] ERIC G. MESSINGER (Pro Hac Vice) 4 [email protected] 217 Leidesdorff Street 5 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415-362-6666 6 Facsimile: 415-236-6300 7 Attorneys for Defendant TWITTER, INC. 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 12 TWiT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability Case No. 3:18-cv-00341-JSC company, LEO LAPORTE, 13 DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S NOTICE OF Plaintiffs, MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS 14 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT; v. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 15 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF TWITTER, INC., a Delaware corporation, 16 Date: April 26, 2018 Defendant. Time: 9:00 a.m. 17 Ctrm: F, 15th Floor Judge: Honorable Jacqueline Scott Corley 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF / CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00341-JSC Case 3:18-cv-00341-JSC Document 17 Filed 03/20/18 Page 2 of 37 1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION 2 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on April 26, 2018 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the 4 matter may be heard in Courtroom F of the above-entitled court, located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San 5 Francisco, CA 94102, the undersigned Defendant Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”), will and hereby does move 6 for an order dismissing Plaintiffs TWiT, LLC (“TWiT”) and Leo Laporte’s (collectively “Plaintiffs”) 7 Complaint which was filed on January 16, 2018. 8 This Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in 9 support thereof, pleadings on file in this matter, the arguments of counsel, and all other material which 10 may properly come before the Court at or before the hearing on this Motion. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF / CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00341-JSC Case 3:18-cv-00341-JSC Document 17 Filed 03/20/18 Page 3 of 37 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 I. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 4 II. FACTS .............................................................................................................................................2 5 A. TWiT and Twitter launched within the same period, and were each aware of the other, but no coexistence agreement was mentioned, let alone formed, on the 6 March 2007 TWiT episode. .................................................................................................2 7 B. Laporte continued to talk about Twitter after the 2007 episode but never took any action, even after Twitter put the world on notice of its plans. ...........................................4 8 C. Laporte’s and Williams’ exchange about incorrect reporting on a TV show did not 9 confirm any contract. ...........................................................................................................4 10 D. Laporte was well aware of audio and video on Twitter and never alleged breach of any agreement or infringement. ...........................................................................................5 11 E. Plaintiffs filed suit without identifying an alleged “breach.” ..............................................6 12 III. LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................................6 13 IV. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................6 14 A. Plaintiffs fail to plead a contract—oral, written, implied, or by estoppel—and even 15 if they had, the Contract Claims would be untimely. ..........................................................7 16 1. The netcast exchange between Laporte and Williams did not create an oral coexistence contract. ................................................................................................8 17 a. There was no consent. ..................................................................................8 18 b. There were not sufficiently definite contractual terms. ...............................9 19 c. There was no consideration. ........................................................................9 20 d. The alleged oral contract runs afoul of the statute of frauds. .......................9 21 2. Larporte’s Letter to Williams about false reports of a TV show, and 22 Williams’ Email in response, did not form or “confirm” a contract. .....................10 23 a. There was no offer or acceptance. .............................................................11 24 b. There was no consideration. ......................................................................11 25 c. Plaintiffs’ allegations for the other elements of a breach of written contract claim are also deficient. ...............................................................12 26 3. There was no “implied” contract between the parties. ..........................................12 27 4. Promissory estoppel is inapplicable and inadequately pleaded. ............................13 28 a. Plaintiffs fail to identify any clear and unambiguous promise. .................14 ii DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF / CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00341-JSC Case 3:18-cv-00341-JSC Document 17 Filed 03/20/18 Page 4 of 37 1 b. Plaintiffs also fail to plead reasonable reliance on any promise. ...............15 2 5. The statute of limitations has run for every Contract Claim. .................................15 3 a. The Complaint was filed outside of the applicable limitations period. ........................................................................................................15 4 b. The delay in filing suit cannot be excused under the discovery rule, 5 since Plaintiffs used Twitter’s video-posting features themselves more than four years before filing suit. ......................................................16 6 B. Plaintiffs fail to plead a fraud claim, and even if they had, it would be time barred. ........16 7 1. The Fraud Claims are not pleaded with particularity. ............................................16 8 a. The false-promise claim is not pleaded with particularity. ........................17 9 b. The intentional-misrepresentation claim is not pleaded with 10 particularity. ...............................................................................................18 11 c. The negligent-misrepresentation claim is not pleaded with particularity. ...............................................................................................18 12 2. The statute of limitations has run as to every Fraud Claim. ..................................19 13 C. Plaintiffs’ Tort Claims are subject to dismissal. ................................................................19 14 1. The Tort Claims are simply repackaged Contract Claims, and fail on the 15 same basis. .............................................................................................................20 16 2. The Tort Claims are inadequately pleaded. ...........................................................20 17 a. Plaintiffs fail to plead the elements of an intentional interference claim. ..........................................................................................................20 18 i. Plaintiffs fail to plead facts to show that Twitter committed 19 some wrong independent of the interference itself. .......................20 20 ii. Plaintiffs fail to plead facts to show that Twitter interfered with Plaintiffs’ relationships with any particular individual. .........21 21 iii. Plaintiffs fail to plead facts to establish the element of actual 22 disruption. ......................................................................................21 23 b. Plaintiffs’ claim for negligent interference with prospective economic advantage fails for essentially the same reasons as the 24 claim for intentional interference. ..............................................................22 25 3. The statute of limitations has run for the Tort Claims. ..........................................22 26 D. Plaintiffs’ Trademark Claims are barred by a conclusive presumption that Twitter’s mark is valid, and because they are untimely.....................................................23 27 1. The Trademark Claims are barred because the TWITTER mark is 28 incontestable, and thus its registration is “conclusive evidence” that Twitter has the right to use that mark. ................................................................................23 iii DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF / CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00341-JSC Case 3:18-cv-00341-JSC Document 17 Filed 03/20/18 Page 5 of 37 1 2. The Trademark Claims are untimely. ....................................................................24 2 E. Dismissal Should Be With Prejudice, Since Amendment Would Be Futile......................25 3 V. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................25 4