Reale v. Google LLC

N.D. California

Reale v. Google LLC

DecidedApril 26, 2022

Docket3:22-cv-00562

StatusUnknown

This text of Reale v. Google LLC (Reale v. Google LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reale v. Google LLC, (N.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL REALE, Case No. 22-cv-00562-VC

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO v. DISMISS

GOOGLE LLC, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 40 Defendants.

The motion to dismiss is granted. Because Reale does not contest the defendants’ position on the viability of his Sherman Act claims, they are dismissed. The Robinson-Patman Act claim is dismissed because Reale has failed to allege that the alleged transaction involved a commodity or good. 15 U.S.C. § 13(a), (d), (e) (commodity); id. § 13a (good). “Congress intended the Act to apply to tangible goods and not services.” May Department Store v. Graphic Process Co., 637 F.2d 1211, 1214 (9th Cir. 1980). While the line between the two is blurry, this case is far from that line. YouTube does not provide a tangible product for sale. And advertising revenue and channel promotion are not tangible assets as the defendant claims. With the dismissal of the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The case is at an early stage, and comity, fairness, convenience, and judicial economy concerns weigh heavily against keeping this case in federal court. See Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988). Dismissal is with leave to amend. Any amended complaint must be filed within 21 days of this order. IT ISSO ORDERED. Dated: April 26, 2022 Ko“. - VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL REALE, Case No. 22-cv-00562-VC

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO v. DISMISS

GOOGLE LLC, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 40 Defendants.

The motion to dismiss is granted. Because Reale does not contest the defendants’ position on the viability of his Sherman Act claims, they are dismissed. The Robinson-Patman Act claim is dismissed because Reale has failed to allege that the alleged transaction involved a commodity or good. 15 U.S.C. § 13(a), (d), (e) (commodity); id. § 13a (good). “Congress intended the Act to apply to tangible goods and not services.” May Department Store v. Graphic Process Co., 637 F.2d 1211, 1214 (9th Cir. 1980). While the line between the two is blurry, this case is far from that line. YouTube does not provide a tangible product for sale. And advertising revenue and channel promotion are not tangible assets as the defendant claims. With the dismissal of the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The case is at an early stage, and comity, fairness, convenience, and judicial economy concerns weigh heavily against keeping this case in federal court. See Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988). Dismissal is with leave to amend. Any amended complaint must be filed within 21 days of this order. IT ISSO ORDERED. Dated: April 26, 2022 Ko“. - VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Reale v. Google LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reale-v-google-llc-cand-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack