Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Woods v. Google, 11-Cv-1263 (N.D.cal. Oct. 8, 2011) (Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint)

Woods v. Google, 11-Cv-1263 (N.D.cal. Oct. 8, 2011) (Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 82 |Likes:

More info:

Published by: Venkat Balasubramani on Oct 17, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/17/2011

pdf

text

original

 
 
MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; CASE NO. 5:11-CV-01263-EJD
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728MAYER BROWN LLPEdward D. Johnson (SBN 189475)wjohnson@mayerbrown.comDonald M. Falk (SBN 150256)dfalk@mayerbrown.comJohn M. Neukom (SBN 275887) jneukom@mayerbrown.comHamsa M. Murthy (SBN 274745)hmurthy@mayerbrown.comTwo Palo Alto Square, Suite 3003000 El Camino RealPalo Alto, CA 94306-2112Telephone: (650) 331-2000Facsimile: (650) 331-2060Attorneys for Defendant Google Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN JOSE DIVISION
RICK WOODS, Individually and On Behalf of Others Similarly Situated,Plaintiff,v.GOOGLE INC.,Defendant.CASE NO. 5:11-CV-01263-EJD
MOTION TO DISMISS FIRSTAMENDED COMPLAINTHearing Date: January 13, 2012Time: 9 a.m.Before: Honorable Edward J. Davila
Initial Complaint filed: March 15, 2011
Case5:11-cv-01263-EJD Document73 Filed10/08/11 Page1 of 29
 
 -i-
MOTION TO DISMISS FAC—CASE NO. 5:11-CV-03613-EJD
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION .........................................................................................1STATEMENT OF ISSUE TO BE DECIDED.................................................................................1MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .................................................................1STATEMENT OF FACTS ..............................................................................................................3A. Google’s Separate AdWords and AdSense Programs .............................................3B. Woods’ AdWords Agreement With Google ............................................................4C. The Court Dismisses Woods’ Initial Complaint ......................................................6D. Woods’ First Amended Complaint ..........................................................................7E. AdWords Help Center ..............................................................................................7ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................8I. WOODS HAS NOT PLEADED A BREACH OF ANY CONTRACTOBLIGATION THAT RELATES TO SMART PRICING (Count I). ................................9A. The Agreement Contains No Smart Pricing Obligation. .........................................9B. Woods’ Selection Of Internet Materials Should Not Even Be Considered. ............91. The Agreement does not incorporate Exhibits B-F by reference. .............92. Exhibits B-F are not extrinsic evidence of the Agreement’s terms. ........113. Exhibits B-F are not separate, supplemental agreements. .......................12C. The FAC’s Exhibits Contain No Smart Pricing Obligation...................................121. Exhibits B-F expressly limit Smart Pricing to clicks on the“Display Network,” not every web site. ..................................................122. Exhibits B-F do not guarantee universal Smart Pricing of everyclick on every website. ............................................................................133. Other Internet materials—referenced extensively in the FAC— also make clear that Smart Pricing does not apply to all clicks. .............14II. WOODS HAS NOT PLEADED A BREACH OF ANY CONTRACTOBLIGATION THAT RELATES TO AD PLACEMENT (Count V). ............................15
 
A. The Agreement Expressly Disavows
 
Any Guarantees Regarding AdPlacement. ..............................................................................................................15
 
Case5:11-cv-01263-EJD Document73 Filed10/08/11 Page2 of 29
 
 -ii-
MOTION TO DISMISS FAC—CASE NO. 5:11-CV-03613-EJD
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728B. Woods Cannot Salvage His Ad-Placement Contract Claim ByIncorporating AdSense Policies. ............................................................................16C. Woods Is Barred From Asserting Contract Claims Based On AdPlacement Allegations. ..........................................................................................17III. WOODS’ IMPLIED COVENANT CLAIMS (Counts II and VI) ARESUPERFLUOUS AND FAIL TO IDENTIFY ANY SPECIFIC DUTY THATGOOGLE FAILED TO DISCHARGE. .............................................................................18IV. WOODS’ UCL AND FAL CLAIMS (Counts III, IV, VII and VIII) SHOULD BEDISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING, SUBSTANCE ANDPARTICULARITY. ...........................................................................................................19A. Woods Has Not Pleaded Any Injury Resulting From Supposedly “Unfair”Business Practices. .................................................................................................19B. Woods Has Not Pleaded “Unlawful” Conduct. .....................................................20C. Woods Has Not Pleaded Fraud-Based UCL or FAL Claims And CannotDo So. ....................................................................................................................201. Woods has not alleged any misrepresentations, let alone fraud. .............202. Woods still has not satisfied the particularity requirement. ....................213. Woods could not “reasonably rely” on extraneous statements beyond the four corners of an integrated, written agreement. .................22V. WOODS HAS NOT PLEADED A UCL CLAIM FOR LACK OF“GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING.” .....................................................................................23VI. FURTHER AMENDMENT WOULD BE FUTILE..........................................................24CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................24
Case5:11-cv-01263-EJD Document73 Filed10/08/11 Page3 of 29

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->