Perkins

Perkins v. Linkedin Corp.

Good Law
53 F. Supp. 3d 1222·2014 WL 6618753·2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160381
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 13, 2014Case No.: 13-CV-04303-LHKCalifornia13,253 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Koh, J.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’ MOTION TO DISMISS

Paul Perkins (“Perkins”), Pennie Sem-pell (“Sempell”), Ann Brandwein (“Brand-wein”), Erin Eggers (“Eggers”), Clare Connaughton (“Connaughton”), Nicole Crosby (“Crosby”), Jake Kushner (“Kush-ner”), Natalie Richstone (“Richstone”), and Leslie Wall (“Wall”), on behalf of themselves and a putative class (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), bring the instant action against Linkedln Corporation (“Defendant” or “Linkedln”). See ECF No. 55, Second Amended Class Action Complaint (“SAC”). Plaintiffs allege that Defendant, the operator of a popular social networking website, harvested email addresses from Plaintiffs’ contact lists and email history, including the email addresses of every person that has ever emailed Plaintiffs, been emailed by Plaintiffs, or been carbon copied on emails to or from Plaintiffs. Id. ¶ 1. According to Plaintiffs, Defendant violated several California laws by sending, without Plaintiffs’ knowledge or consent, up to two messages to those harvested email addresses reminding the recipients to join Linkedln. Id. ¶¶ 6, 9-11, 92-93. These reminder emails, Plaintiffs allege, used Plaintiffs’ names and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.