Faulkner v. ADT Security Services, Inc., et al, No. 11-16233 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, a California resident, brought a putative class action against ADT in California Superior Court, alleging that ADT recorded his telephone conversation with an ADT representative without his consent in violation of Section 632 of California's invasion of privacy law, Cal. Penal Code 632. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on diversity grounds. The court agreed with the district court's conclusion that plaintiff's pleadings failed to state a plausible claim upon which relief could be granted. The court remanded, however, in order to give plaintiff an opportunity to seek to amend his complaint to successfully plead a cause of action under the federal standards set forth in Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly.
Court Description: California Invasion of Privacy Act. The panel remanded to the district court to give the plaintiff an opportunity to seek to amend his complaint to successfully plead a cause of action under California’s invasion of privacy law. The complaint was filed in a California state court governed by state procedural rules, and removed to federal court on diversity of citizenship grounds. The panel agreed with the district court that the complaint failed to state a plausible claim under California’s Invasion of Privacy Act, but the panel remanded to allow plaintiff to amend to attempt to successfully plead a cause of action under the federal standards set forth in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.