Doe

Doe v. Eating Recovery Center LLC

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJune 4, 20243:23-cv-05561California584 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANE DOE, Case No. 23-cv-05561-VC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING IN PART AND

v. GRANTING IN PART THE MOTION

TO DISMISS

EATING RECOVERY CENTER LLC,

Re: Dkt. No. 29 Defendant.

Eating Recovery Center’s motion to dismiss is denied in part and granted in part. The CIPA and CMIA claims may proceed. The UCL claim is dismissed. This order assumes the reader’s familiarity with the facts of the case, the applicable legal standards, and the parties’ arguments. Personal Jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is based primarily on the Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling in Briskin, which is now being reheard en banc. See Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., 87 F.4th 404 (9th Cir. 2023), reh’g en banc granted, opinion vacated, 101 F.4th 706 (9th Cir. 2024). Even if the ruling of the three-judge panel in Briskin had not been vacated, the Court would find that the complaint adequately alleges personal jurisdiction over ERC in this case for the reasons discussed at the hearing on the motion to dismiss. The fact that Briskin is no longer good law only makes the issue easier.…

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.