Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 84 Filed 07/31/24 Page 1 of 37
`
`
`
`Ashley M. Gjovik, JD
`In Propria Persona
`2108 N St. Ste. 4553
`Sacramento, CA, 95 816
`(408) 883 -4428
`
`legal@ash ley gjov ik .com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`United States District Court
`Northern District of California
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ashley M. Gjovik , an individual,
`
`Case No. 3:23 -CV-04597-EMC
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Plaintiff’s Memorandum
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Inc., a corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of Points & Authorities
`
`
`In Opposition to Defendant’s
`
`Fourth Motion to Dismiss
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. § 12(b)(6)
`
`
`
`Motion Hearin g & Ca se
`Management Conference:
`Dept: Cour troom 5 (Zoom)
`Judge Edwa rd M. Chen
`Date: Augus t 22, 2024
`Time: 1:3 0 P M PT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 84 Filed 07/31/24 Page 2 of 37
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Contents
`I. Plaintiff ’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to
`Dismiss Claims, Again ................................................................... 1
`II.
`Statements Of Facts .............................................................. 1
`III.
`Issues to be Decided .............................................................. 1
`IV. Arguments ........................................................................... 1
`A.
`Defendant misrepresented Plaintiff ’s Fourth Amended Complaint. ... 1
`B. The majority of Defendant’s arguments are barred by Rule 12( g) and
`12(h). ..................................................................................................... 3
`C.
`Cal.Lab.C. Section 1102.5 alleges a sufficient amount of statutes to
`proceed. ................................................................................................. 6
`D.
`Plaintiff ’s request for civil penalties is not time barred. .................. 11
`E.
`Plaintiff made numerous protected Cal.Lab.C. Section 6399.7
`complaints under Section 6310. .............................................................. 12
`F. Claims for Cal.Lab.C. Section 1101, 1102, 232, and 232.5 are sufficient
`and/or can be sufficient with increased page limits, and dismissal on the
`pleadings was waived. ............................................................................ 13
`G.
`There is probably a private right of action for 96k claims, but if
`there’s not, the claim supports the policy for a Tamney ConTort claim. ...... 16
`H.
`The UCL Section 17200 claim is viable for injunctive relief. ........... 18
`I.
`IIED claims are sufficiently pled; the IIED Cancer claim was already
`approved to move for ward. ..................................................................... 19
`J. The Private Nuisance, Ultrahazardous Activities, and IIED/Cancer
`claims are not time barred. .................................................................... 21
`K.
`The Ultrahazardous Activities claim states a claim for Ultrahazardous
`Activities; it was already approved to move for ward. ............................... 22
`V.
`Conclusion ......................................................................... 28
`
`
`
`P l .’ s Op p. t o D e f.’s . M o t. To D is m iss | C a s e No . 3 :2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`— ii —
`
`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 84 Filed 07/31/24 Page 3 of 37
`
`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
`
`
`
`I. Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Alla Med . Ser vices, Inc . (9th Cir. 1988) 855 F2d 1470, 1476 -
`1477. ......................................................................................................... 5
`Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Alla Med . Ser vs. Inc ., 855 F.2d 1470, 1475 -77, n. 2 (9th Cir.
`1988) ........................................................................................................ 5
`Aetna Life Ins. v. Alla Med . Ser vs., Inc . , 855 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir. 1988). ...... 3
`Aetna Life Ins. v. Alla Med . Ser vs., Inc ., 855 F.2d 1470, 1475 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988) . 4
`Aetna Life Ins. v. Alla Med . Ser vs., Inc . , 855 F.2d 1470, 1476 (9th Cir. 1988). ...... 4
`Ahrens v. Sup.Ct. (Pacific Gas & Elec. Co.), supra, 197 CA3d at 1142, 243 CR at
`424, fns. 5 & 6 ......................................................................................... 23
`Ahrens v. Sup.Ct. (Pacific Gas & Elec . Co.) , supra, 197 CA3d at 1143, 243 CR at
`424. ........................................................................................................ 25
`Ahrens v. Sup.Ct. (Pacific Gas & Elec . Co.) , supra, 197 CA3d at 1143, 243 CR at
`424; Luthringer v. Moore, supra, 31 C2d at 498, 190 P2d at 7 ...................... 25
`Ains worth v. Shell O ffshore, Inc ., 829 F.2d 548, 549 (5th Cir. 1987), ................. 26
`Allstate Ins. Co. v. Countr ywide Financial Corp., 824 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1175 (C.D.
`Cal. 2011). ................................................................................................ 3
`Alvarez v. Hill (9th Cir. 2008) 518 F3d 1152, 1158; Wilson v. Birnberg (5th Cir.
`2012) 667 F3d 591, 595. ............................................................................ 18
`Anderson v. Teck Metals, Ltd . , No. CV-13-420 -LRS, 10-14 (E.D. Wash. Jan. 5,
`2015). ..................................................................................................... 26
`Baker v. Burbank -Gle ndale -Pasade na Airport Auth . (1985) 39 C3d 862, 868 -869,
`218 CR 293, 297; ..................................................................................... 21
`Balding v. D.B. Stutsman , Inc . (1966) 246 CA2d 559, 564, 54 CR 7 17, 720. ....... 25
`Barbee v. Household Automotive Finance Corp. , 113 Cal.App.4th 525, 533 -34 (Cal.
`Ct. App. 2003). ........................................................................................ 17
`Barbee v. Household Automotive Finance Corp. , 113 Cal.App.4th 525, 536 (Cal. Ct.
`App. 2003) ............................................................................................... 17
`Birdsong v. Apple, Inc . , 590 F.3d 955, 960 -61 (9th Cir. 2009) .......................... 18
`Brandon v. Rite Aid Corp., Inc . (ED CA 2006) 408 F.Supp.2d 964, 982. ........... 20
`Burton v. Ghosh , 961 F.3d 960, 967 -968 (7th Cir. 2020). ................................... 4
`Cahe n v. Toyota Motor Corp. , 147 F. Supp. 3d 955, 972 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .......... 18
`California-American Water Co. v. Marina Coast Water Dist., 86 Cal. App. 5th
`1272, 303 Cal. Rptr. 3d 227 (1st Dist. 2022), review denied, (Mar. 29, 2023). 22
`Campbell v. Hawaii Dept. of Ed . (9th Cir. 2018) 892 F3d 1005, 1017 ................. 21
`Carrasco v. Craft (1985) 164 CA3d 796, 808 -809, 210 CR 599, 607. .................... 4
`Cer vantes v. Cit y of San Diego (9th Cir. 1993) 5 F3d 1273, 1275 ....................... 22
`
`P l .’ s Op p. t o D e f.’s . M o t. To D is m iss | C a s e No . 3 :2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`— ii i —
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 84 Filed 07/31/24 Page 4 of 37
`
`
`
`cf.In re Facebook Privacy Litig . , 791 F. Supp. 2d 705, 7 12 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ....... 18
`Continental Culture Specialists, Inc . (1992) 2 C4th 744, 756, 7 CR2d 808, 816 .. 20
`Cramer v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc . (9th Cir. 2001) 255 F3d 683, 697 (en
`banc). ...................................................................................................... 19
`Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc . (2006) 145 CA4th 790, 809, 52 CR3d 376, 392.
` ............................................................................................................... 19
`Doe v. White, No. 08–1287, 2010 WL 323510, at *2 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 20, 2010) ...... 3
`Dutton v. Rocky Mountain Phosphates, 151 Mont. 54, 438 P.2d 674, 680 (1968) .. 25
`Dutton v. Rocky Mt. Phosphates, 151 Mont. 54, 438 P.2d 674 (1968) .................. 27
`Edwards v. Post Transp. Co. ........................................................................... 25
`Edwards v. Post Transp. Co. , supra, 228 CA3d at 983, 279 CR at 232. ............... 22
`Edwards v. Post Transp. Co., supra, 228 CA3d at 985, 279 CR at 233 .............. 23
`Edwards v. Post Transp. Co. , supra, 228 CA3d at 985, 279 CR at 233): .............. 23
`Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998) 524 US 775, 789, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 2284. ... 21
`Fed. Agr. Mortgage Corp. v. It's A Jungle Out There , Inc ., No. C 03 -3721 VRW,
`2005 WL 3325051, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2005) ......................................... 5
`Fleeman v. Cnty. of Kern , No. 1:20 -cv-00321, 2023 WL 8375658, at *6 (E.D. Cal.
`Dec. 4, 2023) ............................................................................................ 15
`Folkerson v. Circus Circus Enterprises , Inc. (9th Cir. 1997) 107 F3d 754, 756 ..... 21
`Gay Law Students Assn . v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. , 24 Cal. 3d 458, 156 Cal. Rptr.
`14, 595 P.2d 592 (1979). ............................................................................. 15
`Google Assistant Privacy Litig . , 457 F. Supp. 3d at 816 -17 ............................... 18
`Gotreaux v. Gar y, 232 La. 373, 94 So.2d 293 (1957) ........................................ 27
`Grinzi v. San Diego Hospice Corp. (2004) 120 CA4th 72, 87, 14 CR3d 893, 903 -
`904. ......................................................................................................... 16
`Hamman v. Cava Grp ., 22-cv-593-MMA (MSB), 5 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2023). ...... 4
`Harmon v. Billings Be nch Water Users Ass'n , 765 F.2d 1464, 1468 (9th Cir. 1985).
` .............................................................................................................. 25
`Hernandez v. Cit y of San Jose , 241 F.Supp.3d 959, 984 –85 (N.D. Cal. 2017). ...... 3
`Herron v. Best Buy Stores , LP, No. 12-CV-02103-GEB-JFM, 2013 WL 4432019, at
`*4 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2013) ....................................................................... 5
`Hobart v. Sohio Petroleum , 255 F. Supp. 972, 975, aff 'd 376 F.2d 1011 (D.C. Miss.
`1966). ..................................................................................................... 28
`Howe v. Target Corp. , Case No. 20 -cv-252-MMA (DEB), 20 n.5 (S.D. Cal. Sep.
`19, 2020) .................................................................................................. 17
`In re Anthe m , Inc . Data Breach Litigation , Case No. 15 -MD-02617-LHK, 79 -80
`(N.D. Cal. May. 27, 2016). .......................................................................... 3
`In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig ., 846 F.3d at 318. ........................................... 4
`
`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
`
`P l .’ s Op p. t o D e f.’s . M o t. To D is m iss | C a s e No . 3 :2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`— iv —
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 84 Filed 07/31/24 Page 5 of 37
`
`
`
`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
`
`In re E. 1. du Pont de Nemours & Co. C -8 Pers. Inj. Litig . , Civil Action 2:13 -md-
`2433, 29-30 (S.D. Ohio Jul. 6, 2015). ......................................................... 27
`In re Packaged Seafood Prods. , 277 F. Supp. 3d 1167, 1173 -74 (S.D. Cal. 2017). .... 5
`Intel Corp. v. Hamidi (2003) 30 C4th 1342, 1347, 1 CR3d 32, 37. ....................... 19
`Johnson v. City of Shelby, Miss. (2014) 574 US 10, 11 -12, 135 S.Ct. 346, 347 ( per
`curiam) .................................................................................................... 17
`Kajiya v. Departme nt of Water Supply , 2 Haw. App. 221, 629 P.2d 635,
`639 (1981). .............................................................................................. 27
`Killgore v. SpecPro Professional Ser vices, LLC, 51 F.4th 973 (9th Cir. 2022). ...... 10
`Kiseskey v. Carpe nters' Trust for Southe rn Calif. (1983) 144 CA3d 222, 229 -230,
`192 CR 492, 496) ..................................................................................... 20
`Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc . (2022) 12 C5th 703, 7 12, 289 CR3d
`572, 577. ................................................................................................... 11
`Lipson v. Sup.Ct. (Berger) (1982) 31 C3d 362, 374, 182 CR 629, 637, fn. 7; ........ 23
`Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. Superior Court (1946) 28 C.2d 481, 484, 17 1 P.2d 21;
`Ali v. L.A. Focus Publication (2003) 112 C.A.4th 1477, 1486, 5 C.R.3d 791 ...... 15
`Loe v. Lenhardt, 227 Or. 242, 362 P.2d 312 (1961) .......................................... 27
`Lopez v. Apple, Inc . , 519 F. Supp. 3d 672, 681 -82 (N.D. Cal. 2021). ................. 18
`Luthringer v. Moore (1948) 31 C2d 489, 496, 190 P2d 1, 5 ............................... 22
`Luthringer v . Moore, 31 Cal.2d 489, 190 P.2d 1 (1948) ..................................... 27
`Luthringer v. Moore , 31 Cal.2d 489, 497 (Cal. 1948) ........................................ 26
`Luthringer v. Moore , 31 Cal.2d 489, 497 (Cal. 1948). ....................................... 26
`Luthringer v. Moore, supra, 31 C2d at 498, 190 P2d at 7. ................................. 23
`Mathews v. Happy Valley Confe re nce Ctr., Inc . (2019) 43 CA5th 236, 267, 256
`CR3d 497, 524 .......................................................................................... 11
`McLane v. Northwest Natural Gas Co ............................................................. 25
`MGA Ente rtainment, Inc . v. Mattel, Inc ., 41 Cal. App. 5th 554, 254 Cal. Rptr. 3d
`314 (2d Dist. 2019), review denied, (Feb. 11, 2020). ................................... 22
`Pearce v. Briggs, 283 Cal.Rptr.3d 608 ............................................................ 22
`Potte r v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co . (1993) 6 C.4th 965, 1000, 25 C.R.2d 550, 863
`P.2d 795, .................................................................................................. 19
`Romo v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , Case No. 15 -cv-03708-EMC, 3-4 (N.D. Cal. Jun.
`28, 2016) ................................................................................................... 5
`Romo v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , Case No. 15 -cv-03708-EMC, 3-4 (N.D. Cal. Jun.
`28, 2016). .................................................................................................. 5
`Ross v. Count y of Rive rside , 36 Cal. App. 5th 580, 248 Cal. Rptr. 3d 696 (4th Dist.
`2019), review denied, (Sept. 25, 2019) ....................................................... 10
`Rulon-Miller v. International Business Machines Corp . (1984) 162 C.A.3d 241, 255,
`208 C.R. 524 ........................................................................................... 20
`
`P l .’ s Op p. t o D e f.’s . M o t. To D is m iss | C a s e No . 3 :2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`— v —
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 84 Filed 07/31/24 Page 6 of 37
`
`
`
`Schuck v. Beck, 497 P.3d 395, 416 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). ............................... 27
`Schwartz v. Apple Inc . (In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig.), 846 F.3d 313, 319
`(9th Cir. 2017). .......................................................................................... 3
`Silkwood v. Kerr -McGee Corp., 667 F.2d 908, 920 -21 (10th Cir. 1981) ............... 24
`Silkwood v. Kerr -McGee Corp., 667 F.2d 908, 920 -21 (10th Cir. 1981). .............. 24
`Smith v. Lockheed Propulsion Co. , supra, 247 CA2d at 786, 56 CR at 138; .......... 25
`Spar v. Pacific Bell (1991) 235 CA3d 1480, 1485, 1 CR2d 480, 483. .................. 21
`State Dep' t of Envtl. Prot. v. Ve ntron Corp ., 94 N. J. 473, 468 A.2d 150 (1983) .... 26
`Tam v. Qualcomm , Inc . , 300 F.Supp.3d 1130, 1150 (S.D. Cal. 2018). .................. 15
`Tilkey v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2020) 56 C.A.5th 521, 556, 270 C.R.3d 559 ............. 20
`United States ex rel. Lupo v. Quality Assurance Ser vs., Inc . , No. 16-cv-737, 2017
`WL 3174542, at *9 (S.D. Cal. July 26, 2017). ............................................... 15
`United States v. Mole n , No. 2:10-cv-02591 MCE KJN PS, 4 -5 (E.D. Cal. May. 9,
`2011). ....................................................................................................... 5
`Wilshire West wood Assocs. v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1993) 20 CA4th 732, 743, 24
`CR2d 562, 568 ......................................................................................... 21
`Wilshire West wood Assocs. v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1993) 20 CA4th 732, 743 -745,
`24 CR2d 562, 568 -569. ............................................................................. 21
`Wong v. Jing (2010) 189 CA4th 1354, 1378 -1379, 117 CR3d 747, 768 -769 ............ 19
`Zaldivar v. City of Los Angeles, 780 F.2d 823, 832 (9th Cir. 1986). ..................... 4
`
`Statutes
`2023 Senate Bill No. 497 (Chapter 612) .......................................................... 6
`29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.1200 .............................................................................. 13
`33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251 et seq. ........................................................................... 12
`33 U.S.C. Sec. 1321 ..................................................................................... 12
`42 U.S.C. Sec. 7412 ..................................................................................... 12
`CA Labor Code § 6382 ................................................................................. 13
`CA A .......................................................................................................... 10
`Cal.Lab. Code, § 6360 ................................................................................. 12
`Cal.Lab.C. § 1102.6 ...................................................................................... 11
`Cal.Lab.C. 1101 and 1102 ............................................................................... 2
`Cal.Lab.C. 232 .............................................................................................. 2
`Cal.Lab.C. 6399.7 ......................................................................................... 2
`Cal.Lab.C. Section 1102.5 ............................................................................. 11
`California Occupational Safety and Health Act (Cal OSHA) ........................... 12
`CCP § 335.1 ................................................................................................ 21
`CCP § 338(c) .............................................................................................. 21
`CERCLA ...................................................................................................... 6
`
`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
`
`P l .’ s Op p. t o D e f.’s . M o t. To D is m iss | C a s e No . 3 :2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`— v i —
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 84 Filed 07/31/24 Page 7 of 37
`
`
`
`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
`
`Hazardous Substances Information and Training Act ..................................... 12
`Labor Code section 6399.7 ........................................................................... 12
`PAGA .......................................................................................................... 11
`RCR A ........................................................................................................ 10
`RICO ........................................................................................................... 6
`RICO Act ..................................................................................................... 2
`Section 6399.7 ............................................................................................. 13
`Section 96(k) ............................................................................................... 16
`
`Other Authorities
`Landowner's Or Occupant's Liability In Damages For Escape, Without Negligence,
`O f Harmful Gases Or Fumes From Premises, 54 A.L.R.2d 764, 768 (1957 Supp.
`1987) ...................................................................................................... 26
`Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 226 (2000) ...................................................................... 17
`
`Rules
`Fed R. Civ. P. 12( g)(2) .................................................................................. 3
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f ) ....................................................................................... i
`Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 ............................................................................................. 5
`Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 12( g) ..................................................................................... 3
`
`Treatises
`21 A.L.R.6th 67 1 ......................................................................................... 20
`22 Stanf. L. Rev. 1015; 29 A.L.R.4th 287 ....................................................... 15
`2A J. Moore, J. Lucas and G. Grother, Moore's Federal Practice (2d ed. 1987) ¶
`12.22 at12-186. .......................................................................................... 4
`38 A.L.R.6th 541 ......................................................................................... 20
`6 A.L.R.5 t h 162 ............................................................................................ 19
`6 Witkin, Summar y of California Law, Tor ts § 1575 ....................................... 23
`65 C. J.S. Negligence § 100(2)(b) (1966) ......................................................... 28
`Rest.2d Tor ts § 519 ..................................................................................... 23
`Rest.2d Tor ts § 520 ..................................................................................... 23
`Rest.3d Tor ts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 20. ...................... 23
`Restatement (Second) [of Torts § 520], ............................................................ 26
`Restatement (Second) of Torts § 519 (1977) .................................................. 27
`Restatement (Second) of Torts § 519, comment (e) (1977) .................................. 23
`W. Prosser, Prosser on Torts § 59, at 329 (2d ed. 1955) .................................... 25
`Wright & Miller, 5C Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 1388, 491 -95 (3d ed. 2004) ................ 5
`
`Regulations
`ab. Code, § 6362 ......................................................................................... 12
`
`P l .’ s Op p. t o D e f.’s . M o t. To D is m iss | C a s e No . 3 :2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`— v ii —
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 84 Filed 07/31/24 Page 8 of 37
`
`
`
`Cal. Lab. Code § 232.5(c). ............................................................................ 15
`CCP § 335.1. ............................................................................................... 21
`CCP § 338(b) .............................................................................................. 21
`CCP § 340(a) ............................................................................................... 11
`
`
`P l .’ s Op p. t o D e f.’s . M o t. To D is m iss | C a s e No . 3 :2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`— v ii i —
`
`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 84 Filed 07/31/24 Page 9 of 37
`
`
`
`
`
`II. Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition to
`
`Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Claims, Again
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff, Ashley Gjovik,
`
`respectfully
`
`submits
`
`the
`
`following
`
`Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to
`
`Dismiss at Docket No. 78. Defendant’s Motion should be denied. (I apologize for
`
`filing this late, and for any typos or oversights – Responding to all of Apple’s latest
`
`motions within two weeks proved too much work over too short of time).
`
`III. Statements Of Facts
`
`2.
`
`See Opposition to Motion to Strike Statement of Facts.
`
`IV. Issues to be Decided
`
`3.
`
`Defendant now moves to dismiss eleven more of Plaintiff ’s claims
`
`(nine in their entirety, and three partially). Defendant also moves to Strike a
`
`sizable portion of Plaintiff ’s Fourth Amended Complaint, including any reference
`
`to her illness in 2020, her re lated environmental activism, and Apple’s facility at
`
`3250 Scott.
`
`4.
`
`This Court will need to decide whether to grant Defendant’s Motion
`
`to Dismiss in part or full, and if they do grant any requests, whether to provide
`
`Plaintiff leave to amend. Further, the Court will need to decide whether to grant
`
`Defendant’s Motion to Str ike in part or full, and similarly, then decide whether
`
`to give Plaintiff leave to amend.
`
`V. Arguments
`
`A. Defendant misrepresented Plaintiff ’s Fourth Amended
`
`Complaint.
`
`— 1 —
`
`P l .’ s Op p. t o D e f.’s . M o t. To D is m iss | C a s e No . 3 : 2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`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 84 Filed 07/31/24 Page 10 of 37
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Defendant’s latest motion puts for ward a number of procedural
`
`allegations against Plaintiff which are false and not based in fact. Defendant
`
`repeatedly alleges that Plaintiff added new claims and theories that were not in
`
`her prior complaints, and that she violated this Court’s May 20 , 2024, order in
`
`amending claims she was not allowed to or other wise amending in a way that has
`
`offended Defendant. Defendant goes so far as to label the 4AC as an “ eleventh -
`
`hour attempt to introduce yet fur ther claims and alle gations .” (4 t h MTD at 2).
`
`6.
`
`In reality, Plaintiff heeded this Court’s comments in the May 20 2024
`
`Order and decided to drop the majority of claims she was given leave to amend, in
`
`hope that it would prevent Defendant from filing another Motion to Dismiss, and
`
`instead they would file their Answer and the case could proceed swiftly. Plaintiff
`
`now deeply regrets dropping her RICO Act , Bane Act, and Ralph Act claims as she
`
`has now spent just as much time responding to Defendant’s latest Motion to
`
`Dismiss as she would have if she amended and kept those claims.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant arbitrarily accuses Plaintiff of inappropriately adding new
`
`claims and facts, including supposedly new allegations about smuggling, sanctions
`
`laws, Cal.Lab.C. 6399.7, Cal.Lab.C. 1101 and 1102 , Cal.Lab.C. 232, and breach of
`
`the convent of good faith and fair dealing.
`
`8.
`
` In reality, these claims have been in ever y single one of Plaintiff ’s
`
`complaints. Plaintiff will not defend each of these claims where the basis of
`
`Defendant’s argument is misrepresenting the prior existence of the claim. Instead,
`
`Plaintiff created three new resources for ever yone involved in the litigation,
`
`attached to her concurrently filed Declaration. Exhibit A includes a Table showing
`
`histor y of claims. Exhibit B includes the table of contents for all five complaints
`
`(with page numbers as filed). Exhi bit C shows a post hoc, recently created index
`
`for key terms in each of the complaints. Hopefully Apple will stop making these
`
`types of misrepresentations now that the claims are so easy to investigate.
`
`P l .’ s Op p. t o D e f.’s . M o t. To D is m iss | C a s e No . 3 : 2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`— 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
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 84 Filed 07/31/24 Page 11 of 37
`
`
`
`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
`
`B. The majority of Defendant’s arguments are barred by Rule 12( g)
`
`and 12(h).
`
`9.
`
`Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 12( g) provides in pertinent part: If a par ty makes a
`
`motion under this rule but omits therefrom any defense or objection then available
`
`to the party which this rule permits to be raised by motion, the party shall not
`
`thereafter make a motion based on the defens e or objection so omitted, except a
`
`motion as provided in subdivision (h)(2) hereof on any of the grounds there stated.
`
`Aetna Life Ins. v. Alla Med . Ser vs., Inc . , 855 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir. 1988). The
`
`Defendant is foreclosed from asserting in a subsequent Rule 12(b)(6 ) motion “ a
`
`defense . . . that was available . . . but omitted from [an] earlier motion" to
`
`dismiss. Fed R. Civ. P. 12( g)(2) . In re Anthem , Inc . Data Breach Litigation , Case
`
`No. 15 -MD-02617-LHK, 79-80 (N.D. Cal. May. 27, 2016) .
`
`10.
`
`Rule 12( g) is designed to avoid repetitive motion practice, delay, and
`
`ambush tactics. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Countr ywide Financial Corp., 824 F. Supp. 2d
`
`1164, 1175 (C.D. Cal. 2011) . Rule 12( g) applies to situations in which a party files
`
`successive motions under Rule 12 for the sole purpose of delay[.]"); Doe v. White,
`
`No. 08–1287, 2010 WL 323510, at *2 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 20, 2010) (citing the
`
`"substantial amount of case law which provides that successive Rule 12(b)(6)
`
`motions may be considered where they have not been filed for the purpose of delay,
`
`where enter taining the motion would expedite the case, and where the motion
`
`would narrow the issues involved"). Schwartz v. Apple Inc . (In re Apple iPhone
`
`Antitrust Litig.), 846 F.3d 313, 319 (9th Cir. 2017) .
`
`11. Defendant now seeks to assert defenses against the Fourth Amended
`
`Complaint that pertain to a failure to state a claim, but which were available and
`
`omitted from their earlier Rul e 12 motions. Hernandez v. Cit y of San Jose , 241
`
`F.Supp.3d 959, 984 –85 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .
`
`12. The Fourth Amended Complaint largely shares the same factual
`
`P l .’ s Op p. t o D e f.’s . M o t. To D is m iss | C a s e No . 3 : 2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`— 3 —
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 84 Filed 07/31/24 Page 12 of 37
`
`
`
`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
`
`material as the Third Amended Complaint, Second Amended Complaint, First
`
`Amended Complaint, and Original Complaint. There are minor modifications, but
`
`no notable substantive change in causes of actions, parties, or facts. Carrasco v.
`
`Craft (1985) 164 CA3d 796, 808 -809, 210 CR 599, 607. Plaintiff ’s amended
`
`complaint did not change the theor y or scope of the case in a way relevant to the
`
`new defense, or other wise transform the litigation in any way. Burton v. Ghosh , 961
`
`F.3d 960, 967 -968 (7th Cir. 2020).
`
`13. Thus, Defendant’s arguments could have been raised in its previous
`
`motion to dismiss and the instant motion violates Rule 12( g)(2)'s ban on
`
`successive Rule 12(b) motions. Hamman v. Cava Grp ., 22-cv-593-MMA (MSB), 5
`
`(S.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2023). “Rule 12( g)(2) facially bars successive Rule 12(b)(6)
`
`motions.” In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig ., 846 F.3d at 318.
`
`14.
`
`"The philosophy underlying Rule 12( g) is simple and basic: a series
`
`of motions should not be permitted because that results in delay and encourages
`
`dilator y tactics." 2A J. Moore, J. Lucas and G. Grother, Moore's Federal Practice
`
`(2d ed. 1987) ¶ 12.22 at 12-186. Aetna Life Ins. v. Alla Med . Se r vs., Inc ., 855 F.2d
`
`1470, 1475 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988) . Fur ther, this tactic can be part of “ a pattern of
`
`abusive litigation activity in which the Defendants, through their attorneys,
`
`delayed filing an answer to [the Plaintiff ’s] complaint.” Aetna Life Ins. v. Alla Med .
`
`Ser vs., Inc ., 855 F.2d 1470, 1476 (9th Cir. 1988) . In Aetna, the Defendant’s had
`
`delayed for seven months. Here, Apple has delayed filing an Answer for nearly
`
`eleven months.
`
`15. Apple’s already had several extra "bites at the apple" with respect to
`
`attacking Plaintiff 's pleading. Apple needs to file its Answer and participate in the
`
`proceeding. “Without question, successive complaints based upon propositions of
`
`law previously rejected may constitute harassment under Rule 11.” Zaldivar v. City
`
`of Los Angeles, 780 F.2d 823, 832 (9th Cir. 1986)