This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Torts
Conversion
Quantum Meruit

Joseph Taylor, Edward Mlakar, Mick Cleary and Eugene Alvis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Google LLC

Published: Nov. 25, 2022 | Result Date: Sep. 30, 2022 | Filing Date: Nov. 12, 2020 |

Case number: 5:20-cv-07956-VKD Bench Decision –  Defense

Judge

Virginia K. DeMarchi

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Glen E. Summers
(Bartlit Beck LLP)

Karma M. Giulianelli
(Bartlit Beck LLP)

Alison G. Wheeler
(Bartlit Beck LLP)

George A. Zelcs
(Korein Tillery LLC)

Robert E. Litan
(Korein Tillery LLC)

Ryan Z. Cortazar
(Korein Tillery Inc.)

Michael E. Klenov
(Korein Tillery LLC)

Carol O'Keefe
(Korein Tillery LLC)


Defendant

Whitty Somvichian
(Cooley LLP)

Kelsey R. Spector
(Cooley LLP)

Max A. Bernstein
(Cooley LLP)


Facts

Google LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Mountain View, California. As part of its business, Google developed the Android operating system. The operating system is used on mobile devices it designs, markets, and sells, and it is the most popular mobile operating system in the United States.

Joseph Taylor is a resident of Illinois who purchased an Android mobile device. On November 12, 2020, Taylor and others who purchased Android devices filed a lawsuit against Google on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that they had property interests in the cellular data allowances they purchased from their mobile carriers; that they had not consented to the defendant using their data allowances to transfer information between their devices and the defendant when they were not actively using them; that, despite this, the defendant had used their data allowances to initiate passive transfers when they were not using their devices; and that this was a conversion of the plaintiffs' property. The plaintiffs further contended that the defendant gained a benefit for its business by using the data allowances; that this benefit was gained by converting the data allowances; that there was no contract between the defendant and them authorizing these transfers; and that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the reasonable value of the data allowances wrongfully used by the defendant.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: The defendant denied any wrongdoing or liability and all the plaintiff's material allegations.

Result

The court granted Google's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint without leave to amend.


#139840

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390