Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHKORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYINGLUCASFILM’S MOTION TO DISMISS
U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
The Court recites the factual allegations as pled in the Consolidated Amended Complaint(“CAC”), ECF No. 65, and as indicated in judicially noticed documents. The Court then recountsthe procedural background.
Unless otherwise noted, the following allegations are taken from the CAC and presumed tobe true for purposes of ruling on Defendants’ motions to dismiss.
See Marder v. Lopez
, 450 F.3d445, 447 n.1 (9th Cir. 2006). The Court also takes judicial notice of documents from a relatedDepartment of Justice (“DOJ”) investigation and civil lawsuit that are referenced in the CAC orattached as exhibits to the Declaration of Christina J. Brown (“Brown Decl.”), ECF No. 79-1, andthe Declaration of Dean M. Harvey (Harvey Decl.”), ECF No. 93. A court “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if thoseproceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.”
United States ex rel. Robinson RancheriaCitizens Council v. Borneo, Inc.
, 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992). A court may also take judicialnotice of the existence of matters of public record, such as a prior order or decision, but not thetruth of the facts cited therein.
See Lee v. City of L.A.
, 250 F.3d 668, 689-90 (9th Cir. 2001). TheCourt may consider documents referenced in, but not attached to a complaint without converting amotion to dismiss into one seeking summary judgment.
See Swartz v. KPMG LLP
, 476 F.3d 756,763 (9th Cir. 2007).
Defendants include the following high-tech companies with principal places of businesslocated in the following cities in California: Adobe Systems Inc. (“Adobe”), San Jose; Apple Inc.(“Apple”), Cupertino; Google Inc. (“Google”), Mountain View; Intel Corp. (“Intel”), Santa Clara;Intuit Inc. (“Intuit”), Santa Clara; Lucasfilm Ltd. (“Lucasfilm”), San Francisco; and Pixar,Emeryville. CAC
¶¶ 16-20.Plaintiffs Michael Devine, Mark Fichtner, Siddharth Hariharan, Brandon Marshall, andDaniel Stover (collectively “Named Plaintiffs”), all worked as software engineers for some of theDefendants.
. ¶¶ 21-27. Mr. Devine worked for Adobe in the State of Washington from October
Case5:11-cv-02509-LHK Document119 Filed04/18/12 Page2 of 29