Full text
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO
STRIKE
Case No. 3:21-cv-1418-EMC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
CAT BROOKS and RASHEED SHABAZZ,
individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:21-cv-1418-EMC
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO DISMISS AND
MOTION TO STRIKE
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 34-1 Filed 05/19/21 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO
STRIKE
Case No. 3:21-cv-1418-EMC
Before the Court is Defendant Thomson Reuters’ motion to dismiss and motion to strike.
Having considered the parties’ briefing and oral argument, as well as Plaintiffs’ complaint, the
Court finds that Plaintiffs’ allegations plausibly support their claims.
Specifically, Thomson Reuters’ actions, as alleged, constitute an unlawful and unfair business
practice under California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq., a
violation of California’s common law right of publicity, and unjust enrichment under California
law. Plaintiffs’ claims for equitable relief may also proceed because there is no adequate and
complete remedy at law.
The Court also finds that the California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.100,
et seq., the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, federal copyright law, and the First
Amendment do not bar Plaintiffs’ claims against Thomson Reuters.
Finally, the Court denies Thomson Reuters’ anti-SLAPP motion to strike for three reasons.
Plaintiffs’ claims fall squarely within the law’s public-interest exception, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §
425.17(b), they do not describe protected activity, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(b)(1); and there
is a reasonable probability Plaintiffs will prevail on their claims. See Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC,
715 F.3d 254, 261 (9th Cir. 2013).
For all these reasons, the Court DENIES Thomson Reuters’ motion to dismiss and motion to
strike.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: _______________, 2021
Hon. Edward M. Chen
United States District Judge
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 34-1 Filed 05/19/21 Page 2 of 2