Omni Innovations LLC et al v. Smartbargains.com LP et al, No. 2:2006cv01129 - Document 14 (W.D. Wash. 2007)

Court Description: RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Omni Innovations LLC, James S Gordon, Jr, to 13 MOTION to Stay Pending a Final Judgment in a Related Case, or Dismiss CAN-SPAM Claims for Failure to State a Claim. (Nelsen, Eric)

Download PDF

Omni Innovations LLC et al v. Smartbargains.com LP et al Case 2:06-cv-01129-JCC Doc. 14 Document 14 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 11 OMNI INNOVATIONS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and JAMES S. GORDON JR. Plaintiffs, 12 13 14 No. CV 06-1129 JCC PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' CANSPAM CLAIMS v. SMARTBARGAINS.COM, LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership; 15 Defendant. 16 INTRODUCTION 17 1. Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint ("FAC") contains a short and plain 18 statement of Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant. In essence, between August 2003 and 19 May 2006, Plaintiffs received 4506-plus e-mails from Defendant, each of which violated 20 the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, 15 U.S.C. § 7701 et seq. ("CAN-SPAM Act"), causing 21 damage to Plaintiffs and entitling them to statutory damages.1 22 2. Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs' federal claims on two grounds: (a) 23 that Plaintiffs have insufficiently pled their status as "Internet access services," and 24 thereby lack standing; and (b) that the FAC does not exactly parrot the language of the 25 26 27 28 1 The FAC also alleges violations of certain Washington state laws not at issue here, as the Motion to Dismiss is brought only as to the CAN-SPAM Act claims. PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' CAN-SPAM CLAIMS - 1 SAYRE LAW OFFICES 1016 Jefferson St Seattle WA 98104-2435 206/625-0092 fax 206/625-9040 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:06-cv-01129-JCC Document 14 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 2 of 7 1 statute to state that Plaintiffs, as Internet access services, were "adversely affected" by 2 receiving 4506-plus e-mails from Defendant that violate the statute. (Instead the FAC 3 states that the e-mails "caus[ed] damage" to Plaintiffs.) 4 3. Both arguments strain to misconstrue a short and plain statement of a claim 5 that Defendant obviously understands. Defendant seeks to invent pleading requirements 6 more technical than a "short and plain statement" and thereby evade the merits of the 7 claim. Defendant additionally seeks to argue against the allegations in the FAC, which is 8 prohibited in a Motion to Dismiss (see ¶¶5-6, below). 9 4. The Motion to Dismiss should be denied or, in the alternative, Plaintiffs 10 should be granted leave to make the three-word amendment to the FAC that would make 11 Defendant's objections unarguably moot. 12 MOTION TO DISMISS STANDARD 13 5. Other than jurisdictional facts and a request for relief, a complaint need only 14 contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to 15 relief..." F.R.Cv.P. 8(a). "Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and 16 direct. No technical forms of pleading or motions are required." F.R.Cv.P. 8(e)(1). "All 17 pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice." F.R.Cv.P. 8(f). 18 6. In construing these rules, Plaintiffs agree with Defendant that dismissal is 19 warranted only if it "appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 20 support of his claim which would entitle him to relief."2 Review is limited to the FAC 21 itself,3 and all factual allegations set forth therein are taken as true and construed in the 22 light most favorable to the Plaintiffs.4 23 /// 24 25 26 2 3 4 27 28 Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1274 (9th Cir. 1993). Epstein v. Wash. Energy Co., 83 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 1996). PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' CAN-SPAM CLAIMS - 2 SAYRE LAW OFFICES 1016 Jefferson St Seattle WA 98104-2435 206/625-0092 fax 206/625-9040 Case 2:06-cv-01129-JCC Document 14 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 3 of 7 1 2 PLAINTIFFS HAVE SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THEIR STATUS AS "INTERNET ACCESS SERVICES" 3 7. An Internet access service "enables users to access content,...electronic 4 mail,...or other services offered over the Internet." 47 U.S.C. § 231, incorporated by 5 reference in the CAN-SPAM Act at 15 U.S.C. § 7702(11). Plaintiffs' FAC states that 6 each Plaintiff "provided and enabled computer access for multiple users to a computer 7 server that provides access to the Internet." FAC ¶¶7,8. It further alleges that 8 Defendant's actions "caused damage to Plaintiffs GORDON and OMNI as the providers 9 of Internet access service..." FAC ¶18. Plaintiffs have made a short and plain statement 10 notifying Defendant that they are making their claims as Internet access services. The 11 FAC could not have been more clear without exactly quoting the statute. Plaintiffs' FAC 12 is, if anything, prolix in needlessly specifying "access to a server to access the Internet" 13 instead of the simpler "access content over the Internet." 14 8. Defendant argues that Plaintiff is not an "Internet access service" by asserting 15 that "Plaintiffs' alleged status as an Internet access service is based merely on the fact 16 that Jim Gordon has an account he shares with at least two other people to access the 17 Internet." This assertion is untrue, and in any event should be ignored because no such 18 allegation is made in the FAC. The Court "may not consider any material beyond the 19 pleadings in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion."5 Defendant does attempt to justify its 20 assertion by noting that the FAC alleges that Plaintiff uses "a" server, as opposed to 21 multiple servers, to provide Internet access services. Thus, Defendant construes 22 paragraphs 7 and 8 of the FAC against Plaintiffs to urge that the allegations might 23 conceivably encompass some types of shared Internet access among individuals that is 24 not "Internet access service." However, construing in favor of Plaintiffs, as required 25 here, paragraphs 7 and 8 of the FAC clearly also encompass services that are 26 5 27 28 Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001). PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' CAN-SPAM CLAIMS - 3 SAYRE LAW OFFICES 1016 Jefferson St Seattle WA 98104-2435 206/625-0092 fax 206/625-9040 Case 2:06-cv-01129-JCC Document 14 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 4 of 7 1 unquestionably "Internet access services:" for example, setting up and hosting domain 2 names, websites, and e-mail accounts for multiple users. Such activities may of course 3 be accomplished with a single server as easily as with multiple servers – it is merely a 4 matter of scale. The question of whether Plaintiffs' actual scale and scope of services 5 qualify them as Internet access services may be resolved only by presentation of evidence 6 and resolution by the trier of fact. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss should be denied. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 PLAINTIFFS HAVE SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THEIR ENTITLEMENT TO RELIEF 9. Plaintiffs' FAC states: On the basis of the facts set forth hereinabove, Defendant SMARTBARGAINS.COM, LP, initiated the transmission of the E-mails, and each of them, and the Additional E-mails, and each of them, to a protected computer in violation of 15 U.S.C. §7704(a), causing damage to Plaintiffs GORDON and OMNI as the providers of Internet access service receiving each such E-mail, in the amount of $100 for each such E-mail, as provided in 15 U.S.C. §7706(g)(3). 14 FAC, ¶18 (emphasis added). Plaintiffs thus give Defendant clear notice of their 15 allegations that the Defendant's e-mails violate a specific federal law, caused damage to 16 Plaintiffs, and entitle Plaintiffs to relief in an amount set in another specific federal law. 17 Nothing in this statement is unclear. 18 10. Defendant, again, must clearly have understood Plaintiffs' FAC and its 19 statutory references, because Defendant cites exactly the same statute – 15 U.S.C. § 20 7706(g) – to argue that Plaintiffs should have parrotted that statute's phrase "adversely 21 affected" in their FAC. 15 U.S.C. § 7706(g)(1). Defendant clearly already has received 22 notice that Plaintiffs' entitlement to relief is based on 15 U.S.C. § 7706(g), and nothing 23 more is required by notice pleading standards. To require the exact statutory phrase to 24 appear in the FAC would resort to "technical form" prohibited by F.R.Cv.P. 8(e)(1), and 25 would not do Plaintiffs substantial justice, violating F.R.Cv.P. 8(f). 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' CAN-SPAM CLAIMS - 4 SAYRE LAW OFFICES 1016 Jefferson St Seattle WA 98104-2435 206/625-0092 fax 206/625-9040 Case 2:06-cv-01129-JCC 1 2 Document 14 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 5 of 7 11. In the alternative to simply denying the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs request leave of Court to amend paragraph 18 of their FAC by simply adding three words: 3 On the basis of the facts set forth hereinabove, Defendant SMARTBARGAINS.COM, LP, initiated the transmission of the E-mails, and each of them, and the Additional E-mails, and each of them, to a protected computer in violation of 15 U.S.C. §7704(a), adversely affecting and causing damage to Plaintiffs GORDON and OMNI as the providers of Internet access service receiving each such E-mail, in the amount of $100 for each such E-mail, as provided in 15 U.S.C. §7706(g)(3). 4 5 6 7 That Defendant's argument is specious should be highlighted by Plaintiffs' ability to 8 amend the FAC in such a minuscule manner, without altering its force or meaning at all, 9 and still thereby make the matter unarguably moot. 10 CONCLUSION 11 12. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is based not so much on inadequacies in the 12 FAC as it is on hairsplitting about which words should be used to convey substantially 13 the same meaning. Defendant understands that Plaintiffs allege they are Internet access 14 services, but argues that they are not – a controversion of fact that Defendant is free to 15 put at issue by its Answer. Defendant also understands that Plaintiffs allege they were 16 adversely affected by receipt of Defendant's 4506-plus e-mails, but argue that the FAC 17 should be dismissed because it says "causing damage" instead of "adversely affecting." 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 28 PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' CAN-SPAM CLAIMS - 5 SAYRE LAW OFFICES 1016 Jefferson St Seattle WA 98104-2435 206/625-0092 fax 206/625-9040 Case 2:06-cv-01129-JCC 1 Document 14 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 6 of 7 13. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss should be denied or, in the alternative, the 2 Court should grant leave to Plaintiffs to amend the FAC by adding "adversely affecting 3 and" to paragraph 18, which would make Defendant's objections unarguably moot. 4 SAYRE LAW OFFICES 5 /s/ Eric C. Nelsen 6 7 8 9 10 DATE: February 12, 2007. By:_____________________________ Eric C. Nelsen Washington Bar No. 31443 SAYRE LAW OFFICES 1016 Jefferson Street Seattle WA 98104-2435 Telephone: 206/625-0092 Fax: 206/625-9040 eric@sayrelawoffices.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' CAN-SPAM CLAIMS - 6 SAYRE LAW OFFICES 1016 Jefferson St Seattle WA 98104-2435 206/625-0092 fax 206/625-9040 Case 2:06-cv-01129-JCC 1 2 3 4 Document 14 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 7 of 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 16, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: Derek Alan Newman derek@newmanlaw.com 5 6 7 Robert M. Townsend roger@newmanlaw.com 8 and I hereby certify that on the date set forth above I also mailed by United States Postal Service, first-class postage prepaid, the foregoing document to the following nonCM/ECF participants: 9 None. 10 SAYRE LAW OFFICES 11 /s/ Eric C. Nelsen 12 13 14 15 16 DATE: February 16, 2007. By:_____________________________ Eric C. Nelsen Washington Bar No. 31443 SAYRE LAW OFFICES 1016 Jefferson Street Seattle WA 98104-2435 Telephone: 206/625-0092 Fax: 206/625-9040 eric@sayrelawoffices.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' CAN-SPAM CLAIMS - 7 SAYRE LAW OFFICES 1016 Jefferson St Seattle WA 98104-2435 206/625-0092 fax 206/625-9040

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.