• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
Case No. 09-CV-02393-JF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
K
ERR 
 –––––
 
&
 
–––––  W 
 AGSTAFFE
 
LLP
 
J
AMES
M.
 
W
AGSTAFFE
(95535)M
ICHAEL
N
G
(237915)
KERR & WAGSTAFFE LLP
100 Spear Street, 18th FloorSan Francisco, CA 94105–1528Telephone: (415) 371-8500Fax: (415) 371-0500Attorneys for Plaintiff ZL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN JOSE DIVISION
ZL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,Plaintiff,v.GARTNTER, INC. and CAROLYN DiCENZO,Defendants.Case No. 09-CV-02393-JF
PLAINTIFF ZL TECHNOLOGIES,INC.’S OPPOSITION TODEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
 Date: October 23, 2009Time: 9:00 a.m.Dept.: Courtroom 3, 5
th
FloorJudge: Hon. Jeremy Fogel
 
Case5:09-cv-02393-JF Document21 Filed09/18/09 Page1 of 32
 
 
Case No. 09-CV-02393-JF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
K
ERR 
 –––––
 
&
 
–––––  W 
 AGSTAFFE
 
LLP
 
Statement of Issues to be Decided (Civ. L. R. 7-4(a)(3))
1.
 
Are Defendants’ statements capable of being interpreted as statements of fact,making dismissal on First Amendment grounds inappropriate?2.
 
Even if construed as opinion, are Defendants’ statements capable of beingconstrued as implying the existence of undisclosed facts, making dismissal on First Amendmentgrounds inappropriate?3.
 
Has Plaintiff alleged the type of “commercial injury” that confers standing underthe Lanham Act’s false advertising provisions?4.
 
Has Plaintiff alleged injury and causation as required by California Business andProfession Code sections 17200 and 17500?5.
 
Are Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants’ Magic Quadrant reports serve asadvertisements for Defendants’ products sufficient to meet the liberal pleading requirements withrespect to its false advertising claims?6.
 
Does California law limit negligent interference claims to third-partybeneficiaries, or has Plaintiff met its pleading obligation with respect to alleging the existence of a duty owed by Defendants?7.
 
In the alternative, should Plaintiff be allowed to replead?
Case5:09-cv-02393-JF Document21 Filed09/18/09 Page2 of 32
 
 i
Case No. 09-CV-02393-JF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
K
ERR 
 –––––
 
&
 
–––––  W 
 AGSTAFFE
 
LLP
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 Page
I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................1II. BACKGROUND..............................................................................................................2A. ZL Technologies’ History and Products...............................................................2B. Gartner’s Control Over the Institutional Technology Market..............................3C. Gartner’s Purportedly Objective, Data-Driven Reports........................................4D. Gartner’s False Statements About ZL’s Products.................................................7III. GARTNER’S MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD BE DENIED.....................................9A. Legal Standard......................................................................................................9B. The First Amendment Does Not Insulate Gartner’s Defamatory StatementsFrom Any and All Legal Scrutiny........................................................................91. Gartner’s Defamatory Statements Were Factual....................................102. Gartner’s Implied Statements of Fact are Actionable.............................133. The Cases Gartner Relies On Do Not Support Its Argument.................164. All of ZL’s Claims Survive Gartner’s First Amendment Defense.........19C. Gartner’s Other Arguments are Meritless...........................................................201. ZL Has Standing To Bring Its Lanham Act Claims...............................202. ZL Has Standing To Bring California Business and ProfessionCode Claims............................................................................................21a) ZL has suffered the requisite monetary harm..................................21b) ZL has met the standing requirement by pleading causation..........223. Gartner’s Magic Quadrant Reports Constitute Advertising....................224. Gartner Overstates the “Special Relationship” Requirement forNegligent Interference............................................................................24D. In the Alternative, Plaintiff Should Be Allowed To Replead.............................25IV. CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................25
Case5:09-cv-02393-JF Document21 Filed09/18/09 Page3 of 32
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...