Satchell

Satchell v. Sonic Notify, Inc.

Good Law
234 F. Supp. 3d 996·2017 WL 760786·2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31456
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaFebruary 13, 2017Case No. 16-cv-04961-JSWCalifornia5,751 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

White, J.

ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, AND DENYING, IN PART, MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Now before the Court for consideration are the motions to dismiss filed by Yinzcam, Inc. (“Yinzcam”), Golden State Warriors, LLC (“the Warriors”), and Sig-nal360, Inc. (f/k/a Sonic Notify, Inc.) (“Sig-nal360”). The Court has considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in this ease, and for the reasons set forth in the remainder of this Order, the Court HEREBY GRANTS, IN PART, AND DENIES, IN PART, the motions.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, LaTisha Satchell (“Plaintiff’), brings this putative class action in which she asserts two claims for relief based on alleged violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. sections 2510 , et seq. (the ‘Wiretap Act”). According to Plaintiff, the Warriors organization offers its fans a mobile application *1000 (“the App”), developed by Yinzcam, which “provides an interactive experience for fans by delivering scores, news, and other information relevant to the organization.” (Compl. ¶2; see also id, ¶¶ 24-25.) Plaintiff alleges that the Warriors partnered with Signal360 “to integrate Signal360’s…

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.