RingCentral, Inc. v. Nextiva, Inc.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 RINGCENTRAL, INC., Case No. 19-cv-02626-NC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 12 AND DENYING IN PART v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 13 DISMISS NEXTIVA, INC., et al., 14 Re: Dkt. No. 57 Defendants. 15 16 17 In this business defamation lawsuit, defendants Nextiva, Inc. and UnitedWeb, Inc. 18 move to dismiss plaintiff RingCentral Inc.’s second amended complaint. See Dkt. No. 57. 19 Defendants argue that RingCentral still fails to allege facts supporting its claims. In its 20 amended complaint, RingCentral now alleges sufficient facts to support its claims, but still 21 fails to establish an alter ego relationship between the two Defendants. Accordingly, the 22 Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 23 I. Background 24 A. Allegations in the Second Amended Complaint 25 The facts alleged in the complaint are considered true…