Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 79 Filed 07/15/24 Page 1 of 9
`
`(Additional counsel on following page)
`JESSICA R. PERRY (SBN 209321)
`jperry@orrick.com
`MELINDA S. RIECHERT (SBN 65504)
`mriechert@orrick.com
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`1000 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
`Telephone:
`+1 650 614 7400
`Facsimile:
`+1 650 614 7401
`KATHRYN G. MANTOAN (SBN 239649)
`kmantoan@orrick.com
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`The Orrick Building
`405 Howard Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105-2669
`Telephone:
`+1 415 773 5700
`Facsimile:
`+1 415 773 5759
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Apple Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`ASHLEY GJOVIK,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 23-cv-4597-EMC
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S NOTICE
`OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S
`FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
`Dept:
`Courtroom 5, 17th Floor
`Judge:
`Honorable Edward M. Chen
`Date: August 22, 2024
`Time: 1:30 p.m.
`
`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
`
`4159-3233-8001
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`CASE NO. 23-CV-4597-EMC
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 79 Filed 07/15/24 Page 2 of 9
`
`KATE E. JUVINALL (SBN 315659)
`kjuvinall@orrick.com
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`631 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2-C
`Santa Monica, CA 90401
`Telephone:
`+1 310 633 2800
`Facsimile:
`+1 310 633 2849
`RYAN D. BOOMS (SBN 329430)
`rbooms@orrick.com
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Washington, D.C. 20037
`Telephone:
`+1 202 339 8400
`Facsimile:
`+1 202 339 8500
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Apple Inc.
`
`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
`
`4159-3233-8001
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`CASE NO. 23-CV-4597-EMC
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 79 Filed 07/15/24 Page 3 of 9
`
`I.
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`TO PLAINTIFF ASHLEY GJOVIK: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 22,
`2024, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5, on the 17th Floor of the above-titled Court, located at 450
`Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, Defendant Apple Inc. will move the Court for an
`Order striking certain allegations in Plaintiff Ashley Gjovik’s Fourth Amended Complaint on the
`grounds that the allegations are immaterial, and thus striking them is proper under Federal Rule of
`Civil Procedure 12(f). This Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion, the accompanying
`Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the complete pleadings and records on file, and other
`evidence and arguments as may be presented at the hearing on this Motion.
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`In conjunction with its motion to dismiss portions of Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended
`Complaint (“4AC”), Apple moves to strike allegations in the 4AC under Federal Rule of Civil
`Procedure (“FRCP”) 12(f) to truncate Plaintiff’s still sprawling 74-page complaint. Apple’s goal
`is simple: to settle the pleadings and have a clear complaint on file for the Court and the parties,
`and to which future questions about relevance, scope, and discovery can be tethered.
`While Plaintiff heeded the Court’s advice in the May 20, 2024 order (“May 20 Order”)
`and did not re-plead various claims (see 4AC ¶6), the 4AC inadequately pleads numerous claims
`that are time barred and/or not legally cognizable, not premised on purported retaliation, and/or
`untethered to her employment with Apple, which the Court has already stated is the “gist” of her
`lawsuit. See Dkt. 73 at 1 (“The gist of [Plaintiff’s] suit is that Apple retaliated against her because
`she complained about conduct at the company[.]”). Thus, Apple has contemporaneously filed a
`motion to dismiss directed at eleven of Plaintiff’s thirteen claims, including claims for unfair
`competition, nuisance, ultrahazardous activity, and intentional infliction of emotional distress—
`all of which are untethered to her employment—as well as a handful of the retaliation-based
`claims that are inadequately pled and/or not legally cognizable. If the Court grants Apple’s
`motion to dismiss, the only claims that would remain are only those directly related to Plaintiff’s
`termination of employment.
`
`4159-3233-8001
`
`- 1 -
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`CASE NO. 23-CV-4597-EMC
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 79 Filed 07/15/24 Page 4 of 9
`
`In this Motion, Apple asks the Court to strike all allegations that clearly relate only to
`those claims Apple is moving to dismiss, to the extent the Court dismisses those claims. Striking
`these immaterial allegations is integral to streamlining resolution of the action, and to preventing
`the waste of this Court’s and the parties’ time and resources.1
`II.
`BACKGROUND/STATEMENT OF ISSUES
`Plaintiff filed her initial Complaint on September 7, 2023, asserting ten claims against her
`former employer, Apple. Dkt. 1. On October 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint
`(“FAC”), asserting twelve claims in 335 pages and 1,121 paragraphs. Dkt. 17. Then, faced with
`Apple’s motion to dismiss the FAC, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on
`December 21, 2023, again asserting twelve claims by now expanding her pleading to cover 666
`pages across 1,620 paragraphs. Dkt. 33. On January 30, 2024, the Court sua sponte dismissed the
`SAC for failure to comply with FRCP 8’s mandate that a complaint be “simple, concise, and
`direct.” Dkt. 46 at 2. The Court granted Plaintiff leave file an amended complaint that complies
`with FRCP 8 and is no longer than 75 pages. Id. at 3-4. On February 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed a
`Third Amended Complaint asserting fifteen claims (three more than before) that span 75 pages
`and 261 paragraphs. Dkt. 47. Apple moved to dismiss 13 of the 15 claims, which the Court
`granted in part and denied in part in the May 20 Order, allowing Plaintiff leave to amend a limited
`number of claims. Dkt. 73. On June 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed the operative 4AC, which asserts 13
`causes of action and includes new theories and claims absent from the TAC and not authorized by
`the leave granted by the Court on May 20. Dkt. 78 at 5-6.
`Apple has contemporaneously filed a motion to dismiss eleven of the thirteen claims in
`the 4AC in whole or in part:
`
`1 Concurrently, Apple is moving to dismiss in part the Second Claim in the 4AC premised on
`alleged whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5 (to the extent Plaintiff does
`not allege a specific statute as legally required and/or seeks civil penalties), to dismiss in part the
`Fifth Claim in the 4AC for retaliation under Labor Code section 98.6 (to the extent it seeks civil
`penalties), and to dismiss in part the Sixth Claim in the 4AC for retaliation under Labor Code
`sections 232, 232.5, 1101, and 1102 (to the extent premised on alleged statements regarding
`Palestinians, Muslims, and Uyghurs, or on the disclosure of wages). To the extent the Court
`thinks FRCP 12(f) (rather than FRCP 12(b)(6)) is the preferred vehicle to excise part of a claim
`from a complaint, Apple also moves in the alternative to strike these portions of the Second, Fifth,
`and Sixth Claims, for the reasons set forth in Apple’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 78) at pages 19-21,
`21-21, and 22-23, respectively.
`
`4159-3233-8001
`
`- 2 -
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`CASE NO. 23-CV-4597-EMC
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 79 Filed 07/15/24 Page 5 of 9
`
`(1) whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5 (Second Claim);
`(2) retaliation under Labor Code section 6399.7 (Fourth Claim);
`(3) retaliation under Labor Code section 98.6 (Fifth Claim);
`(4) retaliation under Labor Code sections 232, 232.5, 1101 and 1102 (Sixth Claim);
`(5) retaliation under Labor Code section 96(k) (Seventh Claim);
`(6) breach of implied covenant (Eighth Claim);
`(7) unfair competition (Ninth Claim);
`(8) IIED based on outrageous conduct (Tenth Claim);
`(9) private nuisance (Eleventh Claim);
`(10) ultrahazardous activities (Twelfth Claim); and
`(11) IIED based on fear of cancer (Thirteenth Claim).
`Apple incorporates by reference its motion to dismiss, in which it explains what it understands to
`be the purported basis for each of these claims. See Dkt. 78. With respect to the allegations that
`clearly relate only to those claims Apple seeks to dismiss, they too should be stricken if the Court
`grants Apple’s motion to dismiss those claims.2
`III.
`LEGAL STANDARD
`The Court may strike from a pleading “any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
`scandalous matter.” FRCP 12(f). The purpose of a motion to strike is to “avoid the expenditure of
`time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues
`prior to trial.” Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993) (granting motion to
`strike), rev’d on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517 (1994). Matter is “immaterial” if it “has no essential
`or important relationship to the claim for relief or the defenses being pleaded.” Fantasy, 984 F.2d
`at 1527. “[M]otions to strike are proper, even if the material is not prejudicial to the moving
`
`2 Should the Court grant Apple’s motion to dismiss, only the following claims would remain: (1)
`wrongful termination (First Claim); (2) 1102.5 (Second Claim) to the extent it is based on the
`allegations paragraph 168, at 50:9-25 and seeks remedies other than civil penalties; (3) retaliation
`under Labor Code section 6310 (Third Claim); (4) retaliation under Labor Code section 96(k)
`(Fifth Claim) to extent it seeks remedies other than civil penalties; and (5) retaliation under Labor
`Code section 232.5 (Sixth Claim) to the extent it is based on the allegations in paragraph 182.
`
`4159-3233-8001
`
`- 3 -
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`CASE NO. 23-CV-4597-EMC
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 79 Filed 07/15/24 Page 6 of 9
`
`party, if granting the motion would make trial less complicated or otherwise streamline the
`ultimate resolution of the action.” Barajas v. Carriage Servs., Inc., 2020 WL 1189854, at *5
`(N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2020) (citations omitted).
`IV.
`ARGUMENT
`The Court should strike all allegations that clearly relate only to the dismissed claims, to
`the extent the Court grants Apple’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff’s Complaint is still an expansive
`and muddled seventy-four pages and 246 paragraphs, and striking allegations that are not
`necessary to the remaining and adequately pled claims will assist both the Court and the parties in
`streamlining the action and narrowing the issues. See Barajas, 2020 WL 1189854, at *5; Fantasy,
`984 F.2d at 1527. Apple attaches Exhibit A, which is a highlighted version of the 4AC; every
`paragraph highlighted is one identified below that Apple moves to strike.
`The paragraphs and/or allegations (including footnotes) that clearly relate only to those
`claims Apple seeks to dismiss are identified here by Claim.
`™ Whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5 (Second Claim)
`o ¶2, lines 7-11 (starting at “at two different” and ending with “done to her.”)
`(allegations regarding 3250 Scott building)
`o ¶3, lines 24-27 (starting with “Gjovik’s public advocacy”) (allegations
`regarding 3250 Scott building)
`o ¶10, line 10 (“and 3250 Scott Boulevard in Santa Clara,”) (allegations
`regarding 3250 Scott building)
`o ¶¶26-46, 57-60, 71-72 (allegations regarding 3250 Scott building)
`o ¶83, lines 27-28 (“not even yet knowing about the ARIA facility”)
`(allegations regarding 3250 Scott building)
`o ¶¶149-51 (allegations regarding 3250 Scott building)
`o ¶168, p. 49, lines 17-28; p. 50, lines 1-8, 25-28 (allegations setting forth
`legal claim)
`o Prayer for Relief, ¶viii (seeking remedy specific to 1102.5 and 98.6 claims)
`™ Retaliation under Labor Code section 6399.7 (Fourth Claim)
`
`4159-3233-8001
`
`- 4 -
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`CASE NO. 23-CV-4597-EMC
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 79 Filed 07/15/24 Page 7 of 9
`
`o ¶¶175-76 (allegations setting forth legal claim)
`™ Retaliation under Labor Code section 98.6 (Fifth Claim)
`o ¶¶177-80 (allegations setting forth legal claim)
`o Prayer for Relief, ¶viii (seeking remedy specific to 98.6 and 1102.5 claims)
`™ Retaliation under Labor Code sections 232, 232.5, 1101 and 1102 (Sixth
`Claim)
`o ¶¶181, 183-84 (allegations setting forth legal claim)
`™ Retaliation under Labor Code section 96(k) (Seventh Claim)
`o ¶¶185-88 (allegations setting forth legal claim)
`™ Breach of implied covenant (Eighth Claim)
`o ¶¶189-91 (allegations setting forth legal claim)
`™ Unfair competition (Ninth Claim)
`o ¶¶192-207 (allegations setting forth legal claim)
`o Prayer for Relief, ¶ xi (seeking remedies specific to UCL claim)
`IIED based on outrageous conduct (Tenth Claim)
`o ¶¶138-40 (allegations regarding alleged threats and intimidation underling
`IIED claim)
`o ¶¶208-22 (allegations setting forth legal claim)
`™ Private nuisance (Eleventh Claim)
`o ¶2, lines 7-11 (starting at “at two different” and ending with “done to her.”)
`(allegations regarding 3250 Scott building)
`o ¶3, lines 24-27 (starting with “Gjovik’s public advocacy”) (allegations
`regarding 3250 Scott building)
`o ¶10, line 10 (“and 3250 Scott Boulevard in Santa Clara,”) (allegations
`regarding 3250 Scott building)
`o ¶¶26-46, 57-60, 71-72 (allegations regarding 3250 Scott building)
`o ¶83, lines 27-28 (“not even yet knowing about the ARIA facility”)
`(allegations regarding 3250 Scott building)
`
`™
`
`4159-3233-8001
`
`- 5 -
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`CASE NO. 23-CV-4597-EMC
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 79 Filed 07/15/24 Page 8 of 9
`
`o ¶¶149-51 (allegations regarding 3250 Scott building)
`o ¶¶223-27 (allegations setting forth legal claim)
`o Prayer for Relief, ¶vi (seeking remedies specific to nuisance and
`ultrahazardous claims)
`™ Ultrahazardous activities (Twelfth Claim)
`o ¶2, lines 7-11 (starting at “at two different” and ending with “done to her.”)
`(allegations regarding 3250 Scott building)
`o ¶3, lines 24-27 (starting with “Gjovik’s public advocacy”) (allegations
`regarding 3250 Scott building)
`o ¶10, line 10 (“and 3250 Scott Boulevard in Santa Clara,”) (allegations
`regarding 3250 Scott building)
`o ¶¶26-46, 57-60, 71-72 (allegations regarding 3250 Scott building)
`o ¶83, lines 27-28 (“not even yet knowing about the ARIA facility”)
`(allegations regarding 3250 Scott building)
`o ¶¶149-51 (allegations regarding 3250 Scott building)
`o ¶¶228-37 (allegations setting forth legal claim)
`o Prayer for Relief, ¶vi (seeking remedies specific to nuisance and
`ultrahazardous claims)
`IIED based on fear of cancer (Thirteenth Claim)
`o ¶2, lines 7-11 (starting at “at two different” and ending with “done to her.”)
`(allegations regarding 3250 Scott building)
`o ¶3, lines 24-27 (starting with “Gjovik’s public advocacy”) (allegations
`regarding 3250 Scott building)
`o ¶10, line 10 (“and 3250 Scott Boulevard in Santa Clara,”) (allegations
`regarding 3250 Scott building)
`o ¶¶26-46, 57-60, 71-72 (allegations regarding 3250 Scott building)
`o ¶83, lines 27-28 (“not even yet knowing about the ARIA facility”)
`(allegations regarding 3250 Scott building)
`
`™
`
`4159-3233-8001
`
`- 6 -
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`CASE NO. 23-CV-4597-EMC
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 79 Filed 07/15/24 Page 9 of 9
`
`o ¶¶ 149-51 (allegations regarding 3250 Scott building)
`o ¶¶ 238-46 (allegations setting forth legal claim)
`CONCLUSION
`For the reasons stated, Apple respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motion to
`
`V.
`
`Strike.
`
`Dated: July 15, 2024
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`
`By:
`
`JESSICA R. PERRY
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Apple Inc.
`
`4159-3233-8001
`
`- 7 -
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`CASE NO. 23-CV-4597-EMC
`
`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
`
`