Filed: Aug. 29, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 29, 2018
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS Re: Dkt. No. 25 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . Defendant UpCounsel, Inc. ("UpCounsel") filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C.'s and LegalForce, Inc.'s complaint on July 20, 2018. (Dkt. No. 25.) The Court heard argument on August 28, 2018. Having carefully considered the pleadings and the papers submitted on UpCounsel's motion, and the hearing held on August 28, 2018, and as stated on the r
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS Re: Dkt. No. 25 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . Defendant UpCounsel, Inc. ("UpCounsel") filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C.'s and LegalForce, Inc.'s complaint on July 20, 2018. (Dkt. No. 25.) The Court heard argument on August 28, 2018. Having carefully considered the pleadings and the papers submitted on UpCounsel's motion, and the hearing held on August 28, 2018, and as stated on the re..
More
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS
Re: Dkt. No. 25
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.
Defendant UpCounsel, Inc. ("UpCounsel") filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C.'s and LegalForce, Inc.'s complaint on July 20, 2018. (Dkt. No. 25.) The Court heard argument on August 28, 2018. Having carefully considered the pleadings and the papers submitted on UpCounsel's motion, and the hearing held on August 28, 2018, and as stated on the record on August 28, 2018, the Court ORDERS as follows:
• Plaintiffs' claim for declaratory judgment is DISMISSED as duplicative in light of plaintiffs' counsel's statement at oral argument that it is not in fact a separate cause of action but rather a remedy sought. See Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 766 (9th Cir. 2007).
• UpCounsel's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Lanham Act claim based on lack of standing is DENIED.
• Plaintiffs' Lanham Act claim is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND to the extent it is based on the statement that UpCounsel is the "equivalent to the world's largest virtual law firm."
• UpCounsel's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Lanham Act claim to the extent it is based on UpCounsel's fee disclosures is DENIED.
• Plaintiffs' Lanham Act claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND to the extent it is based on UpCounsel's use and/or purchase of keywords for online searches, such as "trademark attorney" and "trademark lawyer."
• UpCounsel's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Lanham Act claim to the extent it is based on the "Top 5% of Trademark Attorneys" statement is DENIED.
• UpCounsel's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' FAL and UCL claims based on lack of standing is DENIED.
• Plaintiffs' UCL claim under the unlawful prong is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
• To the extent plaintiffs' UCL claims under the unfair and fraudulent prongs are based on conduct that forms the basis of plaintiffs' Lanham Act claim, they are DISMISSED in accordance with the Court's aforementioned rulings.1
• Plaintiffs' request for restitution under the UCL is STRICKEN. See Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Co., 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1151 (2003) (noting that "[c]ompensation for a lost business opportunity is a measure of damages and not restitution to the alleged victims" under the UCL) (internal quotation marks omitted).
• Plaintiffs' unopposed request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 26-1.) The Court takes judicial notice merely over what was in the public realm at the time, not whether the contents of the cited websites are in fact true.
This Order terminates Docket Number 25.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
