TrustLabs, Inc. v. An

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 TRUSTLABS, INC., Case No. 21-cv-02606-CRB

9 Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 10 v. ENTRY OF JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 54(b) 11 DANIEL JAIYONG AN, 12 Defendant.

13 Plaintiff TrustLabs, Inc. moves for an entry of final judgment and a judgment of 14 $8,203.79 against Defendant Daniel Jaiyong An under Rule 54(b). Mot. (dkt. 162). 15 TrustLabs contends that the Court’s prior order granting summary judgment for TrustLabs 16 warrants this outcome because the Court found that TrustLabs had shown that it suffered 17 over $6,000 in damages based on An’s conduct. Id. at 3; see also MSJ Order (dkt. 150) at 18 4 (concluding that TrustLabs had met the $6,000 damages threshold for statutory 19 standing). But the Court did not grant summary judgment with respect to damages under 20 California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. MSJ Order at 8. And 21 for good reason: the question whether a plaintiff has satisfied their statutory standing 22 requirements is distinct from the question of how much damages they can actually recover. 23 See, e.g., Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., 49 Cal. 4th 758, 789 (2010) (explaining the difference 24 between “the issue of standing [and] the issue of the remedies to which a party may be 25 entitled”). Accordingly, the Court denies TrustLabs’ motion for entry of judgment. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 Dated: April 11, 2025