The opinion
1
2
3
4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 KENDRA SULLIVAN, et al., Case No. 19-cv-03187-MMC
8 Plaintiffs,
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'
9 v. MOTION TO DISMISS; AFFORDING
LEAVE TO AMEND
10 SAFEWAY, INC., et al.,
Re: Dkt. No. 28
11 Defendants.
12
Before the Court is defendants' "Motion," filed August 23, 2019, “to Dismiss for
13
Lack of Personal and Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim for Relief.”
14
Having read and considered the papers filed in support of the motion, the Court rules as
15
follows.1
16
1. For the reasons stated by defendants, the Court finds plaintiffs have failed to
17
allege or otherwise show this Court can exercise personal jurisdiction over any defendant
18
other than Safeway Inc. (“Safeway”),2 plaintiffs having failed to plead or otherwise offer
19
facts to support a finding that any such other defendant is either incorporated,
20
headquartered, or otherwise “at home” in California, see Goodyear Dunlop Tires
21
22
1 By order filed earlier this date, the Court took the matter under submission. As
set forth in said order, no opposition has been filed. On October 14, 2019, the date on
23
which any opposition was due, plaintiffs filed an administrative motion for extension of
time to file their opposition. On October 18, 2019, the motion was denied (see Doc. No.
24
40), after which plaintiffs filed a “Supplemental Declaration,” attaching thereto a proposal
for a stipulation of dismissal, to which defendants have replied.
25
2 The defendants in the above-titled action are Safeway Inc.; Albertsons
26
Companies, Inc.; Albertson’s LLC; New Albertsons L.P., as successor in interest to New
Albertson’s, Inc.; Albertsons Companies, Inc., as defendant and as successor in interest
27
to Albertson’s Holdings LLC; Albertson’s Stores Sub Holdings LLC; AB Acquisition LLC;
1 Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011), or, alternatively, that the instant
2 action “arise[s] out of” any such defendant’s “contacts with [said] forum,” see Bristol-
3 || Myers Squibb v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1780 (2017) (internal alteration
4 || omitted).
5 2. For the reasons stated by defendants, plaintiffs’ Third Cause of Action, alleging
6 || a violation of California Civil Code § 1785.20.5(a), is subject to dismissal, as plaintiffs
7 || have failed to show the reports on which they rely in support of such claim contain
8 information “bearing on [their] credit worthiness, credit standing, or credit capacity.” See
Q || Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.3(c).
10 Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, the complaint is
11 DISMISSED in its entirety as to all defendants other than Safeway, and, as to Safeway,
g 12 || the Third Cause of Action is dismissed. If plaintiffs wish to file an amended complaint,
s 13 || they shall do so no later than December 3, 2019. If an amended complaint is not filed,
14 || the above-titled action will proceed on the remaining claims against Safeway.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
a 16
@ 17 || Dated: November 8, 2019 tare, Cate
INE M. CHESNEY
18 United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 3 In light of this ruling, the Court does not address herein defendants’ additional
2g || argument that plaintiffs lack Article Ill standing as to any such defendant.