Case 5:17-cv-06064-LHK Document 54 Filed 03/26/18 Page 5 of 27
B. Procedural History
1
On October 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant suit against Defendants. See Compl.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Plaintiff’s complaint asserts seven causes of action: (1) violation of Article I, section 2 of the
California Constitution; (2) violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution;
(3) violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code. § 51 et seq.;
(4) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et
seq.; (5) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (6) violation of the Lanham
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 et seq.; and (7) a claim for declaratory relief based on Defendants’ alleged
violations of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution; Article I, section 2 of the
California Constitution; the Unruh Act; and the Lanham Act. Compl. ¶¶ 74–122.2
On December 29, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, see ECF No.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
24, and Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. See ECF No. 31 (“Mot.”). On
February 9, 2018, Defendants opposed Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion, see ECF No. 37,
and Plaintiff opposed Defendants’ motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 33 (“Opp.”). Then, on
February 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a reply in support of its motion for a preliminary injunction, see
ECF No. 41, and Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s
complaint. See ECF No. 39 (“Reply”).
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6)
19
20
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to include “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” A complaint
21
that fails to meet this standard may be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
22
12(b)(6). The United States Supreme Court has held that Rule 8(a) requires a plaintiff to plead
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
The Court notes that Plaintiff’s “Seventh Cause of Action” for declaratory relief, Compl. ¶¶ 120–
22, “is not an independent cause of action or theory of recovery.” Wishnev v. Northwestern Mut.
Life. Ins. Co., 162 F. Supp. 3d 930, 952 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Rather, it is a claim for a particular
remedy (declaratory relief) that is premised on four of Plaintiff’s substantive causes of action.
5
Case No. 17-CV-06064-LHK
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FEDERAL CAUSES OF ACTION;
DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CAUSES OF ACTION; AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION