Stanfield
Stanfield v. Tawkify, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JEREMY STANFIELD, Plaintiff, No. C 20–07000 WHA
v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S TAWKIFY, INC., REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Defendant.
19 Plaintiff requests leave to amend his complaint to add a claim based on a single “secretly recorded sales call” that occurred on June 26, 2020, between Jeremy Stanfield and a sales representative of Tawkify, Inc. Plaintiff alleges that this violates California Penal Code Sections 632 and 632.7. If Tawkify violated Sections 632 or 632.7, then Section 637.2 would entitle Stanfield to civil damages for the invasion of his privacy (Br. at 2). Plaintiff’s reply concedes that Stanfield received notice that Stanfield’s originally scheduled sales call on June 19, 2020, would be monitored or recorded, but that this notice was not given in relation to the rescheduled June 26 call (Reply at 8). The April 30 deadline for amending pleadings has since long passed…