Brian Denis Flynn et al v. Emmanuel Pacquiao et Al.,

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12

C.D. Cal.September 7, 2016

MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MARK G. TRATOS tratosm@gtlaw.com GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 3773 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 400 N. Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 RUTH A. BAHE-JACHNA baher@gtlaw.com GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Telephone: (312) 456-8421 Facsimile: (312) 456-8435 Attorneys for Defendants Floyd Mayweather and Mayweather Promotions LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION IN RE: PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING MATCH PAY-PER-VIEW LITIGATION This document relates to: ALL CASES MDL No. 2:15-ml-02639-RGK (PLAx) [MDL No. 2639] MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS [Filed concurrently with Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Ruth A. Bahe-Jachna; and [Proposed] Order] Courtroom: 850 Judge: Hon. R. Gary Klausner Hearing Date: None Scheduled Hearing Time: None Scheduled Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52 Filed 09/07/16 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:519 1 MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on a date and time to be announced, if so notified by the Court pursuant to the Court’s July 7, 2016 Order (Dkt. # 144) or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard by the Honorable R. Gary Klausner in Courtroom 850 of the above-entitled Court, located at 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, Defendants Floyd Mayweather and Mayweather Promotions LLC (collectively, the “Mayweather Defendants”) will and hereby do move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for an order dismissing the below entitled Complaints (collectively “Plaintiffs’ Complaints”), and the causes of action therein, as to the Mayweather Defendants in their entirety. Row Complaint Putative Class Claims Against Mayweather Defendants MTD Argument 1 California Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint Mahoney v. Pacquiao, et al., No. 2:15-cv-3376- RGK (PLAx) (C.D. Cal.) California PPV Consumers I. Cal. UCL (Omission) III. CLRA (Omission) IV. CLRA (Misrepresentation) V. Unjust Enrichment pp. 19-22 pp. 22-23 p. 23 pp. 44, 47 2 Connecticut Plaintiff’s Amended Class Action Complaint Alessi v. Top Rank, Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-06585-RGK (PLAx) (D. Conn.) Connecticut PPV Consumers I. CUTPA (Omission) II. Unjust Enrichment pp. 23-26 pp. 44-45 Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52 Filed 09/07/16 Page 2 of 12 Page ID #:520 2 MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Florida Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint Brady v. Emmanuel Pacquiao, et al., No. 2:15-cv-07093- RGK (PLAx) (S.D. Fla.) Florida PPV Consumers I. FDUTPA (Omission) III. Civil Conspiracy pp. 26-28 pp. 47-50 4 Illinois Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint Gomez, et al. v. Top Rank, Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-06227-RGK (PLAx) (N.D. Ill.) Illinois PPV Consumers I. ICFA II. Unjust Enrichment pp. 28-29 pp. 44-46 5 Michigan Plaintiff’s Amended Class Action Complaint Bradley v. Emmanuel Pacquiao, et al., No. 2:15 cv-06591-RGK (PLAx) (E.D. Mich.) Michigan PPV Consumers I. MCPA (Omission) III. Civil Conspiracy IV. Unjust Enrichment pp. 30-31 pp. 47-50 p. 44 6 Nevada Plaintiff’s Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint Neidl v. Top Rank, Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv- 06230-RGK (PLAx) (D. Nev.) Nevada PPV Consumers I. NDTPA (Omission) III. Unjust Enrichment pp. 31-33 pp. 44-45 Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52 Filed 09/07/16 Page 3 of 12 Page ID #:521 3 MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 New Jersey Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint Bobadilla v. Top Rank, Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv- 06231-RGK (PLAx) (D.N.J.) New Jersey PPV Consumers I. NJCFA (Omission) III. Civil Conspiracy IV. Unjust Enrichment pp. 33-35 pp. 47-50 pp. 44-47 8 New York Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint Barrios, et al. v. Emmanuel Pacquiao, et al., No. 2:15-cv-06233- RGK (PLAx)(E.D.N.Y.) New York PPV Consumers I. N.Y. GBL §349 (Omission) pp. 35-37 9 Pennsylvania Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint Gordon, et al. v. Showtime Networks, Inc., et al. , No. 2:15-cv-06662- RGK (PLAx) (E.D. Pa.) Pennsylvania PPV Consumers I. Unjust Enrichment pp. 44-45 10 Puerto Rico Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint Rodriguez, et al. v. Emmanuel Pacquiao, et al. , No. 2:15-cv- 06665-RGK (PLAx) (D.P.R.) Puerto Rico PPV Consumers I. Fraudulent Concealment (Omission) II. Unjust Enrichment pp. 43-44 pp. 44, 46- 47 Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52 Filed 09/07/16 Page 4 of 12 Page ID #:522 4 MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11 South Carolina Plaintiff’s Amended Class Action Complaint Thrailkill v. Top Rank, Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-6701-RGK (PLAx) (D.S.C.) South Carolina PPV Consumers I. SCUTPA (Omission) II. Civil Conspiracy III. Unjust Enrichment pp. 37-39 pp. 47-49 pp. 44-45 12 Tennessee Plaintiff’s Amended Class Action Complaint Crabtree v. Pacquiao, et al., No. 2:15-cv-06707- RGK (PLAx) (M.D. Tenn.) Tennessee PPV Consumers I. TCPA (Omission) II. Unjust Enrichment pp. 39-41 pp. 44-45 13 Texas Plaintiffs’ Amended Class Action Complaint Craig, et al. v. Emmanuel Pacquiao, et al. , No. 2:15-cv-06234- RGK (PLAx) (E.D. Tex.) Texas PPV Consumers I. TDTPA (Omission) II. Unjust Enrichment pp. 41-43 pp. 44-47 14 Commercial Plaintiffs’ Amended Class Action Complaint Jammers, Inc. v. Top Rank, Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-03496- RGK (PLAx) (C.D. Cal.) PPV Commercial Entities Nationwide Sub-classes : California New York I. Lanham Act IV. Unjust Enrichment II. Cal. UCL (Omission) III. N.Y. GBL § 349 (Omission) pp. 15-18 pp. 44, 47 pp. 19-22 pp. 35-37 Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52 Filed 09/07/16 Page 5 of 12 Page ID #:523 5 MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 15 Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Class Action Complaint on Behalf of Live Attendees DeHart, et al. v. Top Rank, Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-06561- RGK (PLAx) (D. Nev.) Live Attendees I. Nev. CFA-DTPA (Omission) II. Unjust Enrichment pp. 31-33 p. 44 The Mayweather Defendants bring this Motion on the following grounds: (1) As to each of Plaintiffs’ Complaints as a whole, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), each of Plaintiffs’ purported claims for relief are comprised of conclusory allegations and unsupported inferences and thus fail to allege the required particularity of the elements needed to state a claim. (2) As to each of Plaintiffs’ Complaints as a whole, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), Plaintiffs have not pleaded facts with specificity to meet Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading requirements for fraud-based claims. (3) As to each of Plaintiffs’ Complaints as a whole, each of Plaintiffs’ purported claims for relief fail because the law of each state does not provide a remedy for disgruntled or disappointed sports fans and Plaintiffs allege no cognizable injury to a legally protected right or interest. (4) As to each of Plaintiffs’ Complaints, Plaintiffs’ fraud-based claims fail because, inter alia, Plaintiffs rely on non-actionable puffery and no duty to disclose exists. (5) As to Plaintiffs’ Jammers Complaint and its claim for violation of the Lanham Act (false advertising), Plaintiffs’ Lanham Act claim fails because: (1) Plaintiffs are not within the Act’s “zone of interests” and therefore lack standing; (2) Plaintiffs do not allege any false statements by the Mayweather Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52 Filed 09/07/16 Page 6 of 12 Page ID #:524 6 MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants; (3) the Mayweather Defendants did not have a duty to disclose any information; and (4) the Mayweather Defendants’ statements are non- actionable protected First Amendment speech. (6) As to each of Plaintiffs’ Complaints, in addition to the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under any state’s consumer fraud statutes for the additional reasons that: a. [California] Mahoney and Jammers Complaints: (1) Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; and (2) Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq. Plaintiffs’ claims under the UCL fail because: (1) Plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to show that the Mayweather Defendants’ conduct violated any of the statutes or regulations that form the basis of Plaintiffs’ claims and Plaintiffs’ other causes of action fail and cannot support a UCL claim for “unlawful” practices; (2) Plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to show that the Mayweather Defendants’ conduct violated an constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provisions that form the basis of Plaintiffs’ claims and cannot support a UCL claim for “unfair” practices; (3) Plaintiffs fail to allege facts with the required particularity of Rule 9(b) to support a claim for “fraudulent” practices; and (4) Plaintiffs fail to allege a duty to disclose necessary to support their UCL claim; (5) Plaintiffs fail to allege causation as required under the UCL and FAL; (6) Plaintiffs fail to allege that the Mayweather Defendants’ actions were likely to deceive members of the public and thus cannot state a claim under the UCL or FAL; (7) Plaintiffs’ claims are non-actionable puffery; (8) The UCL and FAL only provide for equitable relief; and (9) Plaintiffs cannot request injunctive relief where they do not and cannot allege a likelihood of future injury. Plaintiffs’ claim under the CLRA fails because: (1) Plaintiffs fail to allege causation; (2) Plaintiffs cannot request injunctive relief where they do not and cannot Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52 Filed 09/07/16 Page 7 of 12 Page ID #:525 7 MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 allege a likelihood of future injury; (3) the Mahoney Plaintiffs failed to file the required affidavit in support of their CLRA claim; (4) a license to view a PPV event is not a good or service under the CLRA; (5) the Mayweather Defendants did not have a duty to disclose under the CLRA; and (6) the Mahoney Plaintiffs direct an affirmative misrepresentation claim “against all defendants” but fail to allege any specific allegations against the Mayweather Defendants. b. [Connecticut] Alessi Complaint: (1) Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”), Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 42-110a et seq. Plaintiff’s CUTPA claim fails because: (1) it is unclear what specific conduct by the Mayweather Defendants Plaintiff relies upon as the basis for his CUTPA claim; (2) the allegations fail to show the Mayweather Defendants had access to information about Mr. Pacquiao’s injury; (3) the Mayweather Defendants had no duty to disclose the existence of an injury; and (4) Plaintiffs fail to allege the Mayweather Defendants’ conduct was the proximate cause of their alleged harm. c. [Florida] Brady Complaint: Florida Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”), Fla. Stat. § 501.204. Plaintiffs’ FDUTPA claim fails because Plaintiffs do not meet the elements of (1) a deceptive act or unfair practice; (2) causation; and (3) actual damages. d. [Illinois] Gomez Complaint: Section 2 of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“ICFA”), 815 ILCS 505/2. This claim fails because: (1) Plaintiffs do not sufficiently allege the Mayweather Defendants engaged in a deceptive act or unfair practice; (2) the allegations fail to show the Mayweather Defendants had access to information about Mr. Pacquiao’s injury; and (3) Plaintiffs fail to any damage proximately caused by the Mayweather Defendants. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52 Filed 09/07/16 Page 8 of 12 Page ID #:526 8 MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e. [Michigan] Bradley Complaint: Michigan Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”), Mich. Comp. L. §445.903(1)(s). This claim fails because Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege that: (1) the Mayweather Defendants had access to information about Mr. Pacquiao’s injury; (2) any information they had was material; (3) the Mayweather Defendants had a duty to disclose any information they had about Mr. Pacquiao’s injury; and (4) the Mayweather Defendants’ silence would tend to mislead or deceive consumers. f. [Nevada] In Neidl, Plaintiff, a PPV customer, asserts claims for violation of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“NDTPA”), N.R.S. §598.0915 et seq,. under the provision of the Nevada Consumer Fraud Act (“NCFA”) allowing consumers to bring individual claims, N.R.S. §41.600(1). In DeHart, Plaintiffs, who purchased tickets to attend the Fight live, also assert claims under the NDTPA and NCFA based on the same allegations. All of these claims fail because: (1) a license to view a boxing match is not a “good or service” under the NDTPA; (2) Plaintiffs do not sufficiently plead the Mayweather Defendants’ knowledge under the NDTPA; (3) Plaintiffs fail to plead causation; and (4) Plaintiffs fail to plead an affirmative misrepresentation or a duty to disclose. g. [New Jersey] Bobadilla Complaint: New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“NJCFA”), N.J. Stat. §56:8-1, et. seq.). Plaintiffs’ claim fails because Plaintiffs fail to adequately allege that the Mayweather Defendants had: (1) knowledge of Mr. Pacquiao’s medical injury prior to the Fight; and (2) the requisite intent. h. [New York ] Barrios and Jammers Complaints: New York General Business Law § 349(a) (“GBL 349”). Plaintiffs’ GBL 349 claims fail for at least two reasons: (1) Plaintiffs do not adequately allege that the Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52 Filed 09/07/16 Page 9 of 12 Page ID #:527 9 MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Mayweather Defendants knew of Mr. Pacquiao’s injury; and (2) Plaintiffs do not allege an actual injury. i. [South Carolina] Thrailkill Complaint: South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (“SCUTPA”) S.C. Code Ann. §§39:5-10 et seq. This claim fails because: (1) Plaintiff cannot bring a class action under SCUTPA; (2) Plaintiff fails to identify unlawful conduct on the part of the Mayweather Defendants; and (3) Plaintiff fails to allege harm to the public interest. j. [Tennessee ] Crabtree Complaint: Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), Tenn. Code. Ann §§ 47-18-101 et seq. This claim fails because: (1) Plaintiff cannot bring a class action under TCPA; (2) Plaintiff fails to plead any affirmative misrepresentations; (3) the Mayweather Defendants did not have a duty to disclose. k. [Texas] Craig Complaint: Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (“TDTPA”), Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.41 et seq. This claim fails because Plaintiffs have not and cannot show that the Mayweather Defendants engaged in a false, misleading, or deceptive act. Specifically, Plaintiffs fail to allege that the Mayweather Defendants: (1) made a misrepresentation, or (2) had prior knowledge of Mr. Pacquiao’s injury. (7) [Puerto Rico] Rodriguez Complaint: Plaintiff’s claim for fraudulent concealment fails because: (1) Plaintiffs presume knowledge but offer only conclusory and speculative allegations in support; (2) the Mayweather Defendants do not have a duty to Plaintiffs; and (3) Plaintiffs’ allegations do not satisfy Rule 9(b) pleading standards. (8) As to Plaintiffs’ California, Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas Complaints, Plaintiffs’ Unjust Enrichment claims fail because: (1) Plaintiffs fail to plead with specificity under Rule 9(b); (2) Plaintiffs fail to plead any act making the Mayweather Defendants’ retention of any benefit unjust; (3) Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52 Filed 09/07/16 Page 10 of 12 Page ID #:528 10 MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Unjust Enrichment is not an independent cause of action; (4) Unjust Enrichment is not available when there is an adequate remedy at law; and (5) California requires Plaintiff to allege a definite sum in a claim for Money had and Received. (9) As to Plaintiffs’ Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, and South Carolina Complaints, Plaintiffs’ Civil Conspiracy claims fail because : (1) Plaintiffs fail to plead facts supporting an agreement; (2) Plaintiffs fail to plead with specificity as required by Rule 9(b); (3) Plaintiffs fail to plead a viable underlying tort; (4) the South Carolina Conspiracy Claim fails for the additional reasons that: (a) Plaintiff must, but does not, plead additional acts in furtherance of the conspiracy separate and independent from other wrongful acts alleged in the Complaint, and the failure to properly plead such acts merits dismissal of the claim; and (b) Plaintiff does not specifically allege special damages required for their civil conspiracy claim; and (5) the Florida and Michigan Conspiracy claims fail for the additional reasons that: (a) Plaintiffs must, but do not, allege an overt act by the Mayweather Defendants in furtherance of a conspiracy; and (b) Plaintiffs do not allege any misstatement of fact by the Mayweather Defendants after they allegedly learned of Mr. Pacquiao’s injury. This motion is based on this Notice, the concurrently filed Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the concurrently filed Declaration of Ruth A. Bahe-Jachna, the pleadings and other matters on file in this action, any oral argument that the Court may entertain at the hearing, and upon such other and further matters as may come before the Court. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52 Filed 09/07/16 Page 11 of 12 Page ID #:529 11 MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 // // This Motion is made following the meet-and-confer of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7- 3, which took place on May 26, 2016, and subsequent dates thereafter, as set forth in the concurrently filed Declaration of Ruth A. Bahe-Jachna at ¶ 5. DATED: September 6, 2016 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP By: /s/ Ruth A. Bahe-Jachna RUTH A. BAHE-JACHNA MARK G. TRATOS Attorneys for Defendants Floyd Mayweather and Mayweather Promotions LLC Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52 Filed 09/07/16 Page 12 of 12 Page ID #:530 Mayweather Defs.’ Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MARK G. TRATOS tratosm@gtlaw.com GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 3773 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 400 N. Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 RUTH A. BAHE-JACHNA baher@gtlaw.com GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Telephone: (312) 456-8421 Facsimile: (312) 456-8435 Attorneys for Defendants Floyd Mayweather and Mayweather Promotions LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION IN RE: PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING MATCH PAY-PER-VIEW LITIGATION This document relates to: ALL CASES MDL No. 2:15-ml-02639-RGK (PLAx) [MDL No. 2639] MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ MASTER RULE 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS ALL COMPLAINTS Courtroom: 850 Judge: Hon. R. Gary Klausner Hearing Date: None scheduled Hearing Time: None scheduled Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 1 of 65 Page ID #:531 ii Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................. 2 LEGAL STANDARD .......................................................................................................... 3 ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................... 4 I. THE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE A REMEDY FOR DISGRUNTLED SPORTS FANS. ................................................................. 4 A. Case Law Rejects Plaintiffs’ Claims as Disappointed Sports Fans. ...................................................................................................... 4 B. Public Policy Supports Rejection of These Sports Fans’ Claims. ........ 6 II. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS FAIL TO SATISFY PLEADING STANDARDS. ................................................................................................ 8 A. Rule 8(a): The Court Must Disregard Conclusory Allegations and Unsupported Inferences. ................................................................ 8 B. Rule 9(b): The Heightened Pleading Requirement Applies to Each Complaint as a Whole. ............................................................... 10 III. PLAINTIFFS’ FRAUD CLAIMS FAIL. ...................................................... 12 A. Plaintiffs Rely on Non-Actionable Puffery. ....................................... 12 B. No Duty Exists, and None Should be Created. ................................... 14 C. Plaintiffs’ Allegations do Not Satisfy Rule 9(b). ................................ 15 D. Plaintiffs Fail to State a Claim Under the Lanham Act. ..................... 15 E. Plaintiffs Fail to State a Claim Under any State’s Consumer Fraud Statute. ...................................................................................... 18 i. California .................................................................................. 19 ii. Connecticut ............................................................................... 23 iii. Florida ....................................................................................... 26 iv. Illinois ....................................................................................... 28 v. Michigan ................................................................................... 30 vi. Nevada ...................................................................................... 31 vii. New Jersey ................................................................................ 33 viii. New York .................................................................................. 35 ix. South Carolina .......................................................................... 37 Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 2 of 65 Page ID #:532 iii Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 x. Tennessee .................................................................................. 39 xi. Texas ......................................................................................... 41 xii. Plaintiffs’ Common Law Fraudulent Concealment Claim under Puerto Rican Law Fails. ............................................................ 43 IV. PLAINTIFFS’ UNJUST ENRICHMENT CLAIMS FAIL. ......................... 44 A. Plaintiffs Fail to Plead with Specificity under Rule 9(b). ................... 44 B. Plaintiffs Fail to Plead any Act Making the Mayweather Defendants’ Retention of any Benefit Unjust. .................................... 45 C. Unjust Enrichment is Not an Independent Cause of Action. .............. 46 D. Unjust Enrichment is Not Available When There is an Adequate Remedy at Law. .................................................................. 46 E. California Requires Plaintiffs to Allege a Definite Sum in a Claim for Money Had and Received. ................................................. 47 V. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A CLAIM FOR CIVIL CONSPIRACY. ............................................................................................. 47 A. Plaintiffs Fail to Plead Facts Supporting an Agreement. .................... 47 B. Plaintiffs Fail to Plead with Specificity as Rule 9(b) Requires. ......... 48 C. Plaintiffs Fail to Plead a Viable Underlying Tort. .............................. 49 D. The South Carolina Conspiracy Claim Fails for Additional Reasons. .............................................................................................. 49 E. The Florida, Michigan, and New Jersey Conspiracy Claims Fail for Additional Reasons. ...................................................................... 49 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 50 Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 3 of 65 Page ID #:533 iv Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Federal Cases A Slice of Pie Prods., LLC v. Wayans Bros. Entm’t, 392 F.Supp.2d 297 (D. Conn. 2005) ............................................................................. 25 AccuImage Diagnostics Corp. v. TeraRecon, Inc., 260 F. Supp. 2d 941 (N.D. Cal. 2003) .......................................................................... 18 Ahlers v. Schebil, 188 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 1999) ........................................................................................ 48 Alban v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. Civ. 09-5398 (DRD), 2010 WL 3636253 (D.N.J. Sept. 8, 2010) .......................... 34 Ameristone Tile, LLC v. Ceramic Consulting Corp., 966 F. Supp. 2d 604 (D.S.C. 2013) .............................................................................. 39 Argabright v. Rheem Mfg. Co., No. 15-5243 (JBS/AMD), 2016 WL 3536621 (D.N.J. June 28, 2016) ........................ 34 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) .............................................................................................. 3, 4, 10 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1990) .......................................................................................... 3 Bearden v. Honeywell Int’l Inc., No. 3:09-1035, 2010 WL 3239285 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 16, 2010) ................................ 40 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ........................................................................................ 2, 3, 10, 48 Bildstein v. MasterCard Int’l Inc., 329 F. Supp. 2d 410 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) .......................................................................... 37 Bird v. First Alert, Inc., No. C 14-3585 PJH, 2014 WL 7248734 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2014) ............................ 22 Bonilla v. Volvo Car Corp., 150 F.3d 62 (1st Cir. 1998) ........................................................................................... 43 Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 4 of 65 Page ID #:534 v Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Bowers v. Fed’n Internationale de l’Automobile, 461 F. Supp. 2d 855 (S.D. Ind. 2006), aff’d, 489 F.3d 316 (7th Cir. 2007) ............... 4, 5 Brooks v. GAF Materials Corp., 41 F. Supp. 3d 474 (D.S.C. 2014) .......................................................................... 44, 45 Burns v. Tristar Prods., Inc., No. 14-cv-749-BAS-DHB, 2014 WL 3728115 (S.D. Cal. July 25, 2014) ................... 22 Catalano v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. 15-cv-4889 (KBF), 2016 WL 844832 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2016) ........................... 36 Chip-Mender, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., No. C 05-3465 PJH, 2006 WL 13058 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2006) ................................... 21 City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) ........................................................................................................ 22 Clarkson v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 761 F.2d 189 (4th Cir. 1991) ........................................................................................ 39 Cleary v. Philip Morris Inc., 656 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 44, 45, 46 Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................... 20 Compliance Services of Am., LLC v. Houser Holdings, LLC, 13-CV-01269-JST, 2013 WL 4169119 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013) ......................... 44, 47 ConsulNet Computing, Inc. v. Moore, No. 04-3485, 2007 WL 2702446 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 12, 2007) ......................................... 13 Cook, Perkiss and Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv., Inc., 911 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1990) ........................................................................................ 13 Cork v. Marriott Int’l Inc., 426 F. Supp. 2d 1234 (N.D. Ala. 2006) ........................................................................ 14 In re Covenant Partners, L.P., 531 B.R. 84 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2015) ............................................................................. 44 Destfino v. Reiswig, 630 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2011) ........................................................................................ 11 Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 5 of 65 Page ID #:535 vi Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 E.W. French & Sons, Inc. v. Gen. Portland Inc., 885 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1989) ...................................................................................... 21 Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2004) ...................................................................................... 11 Ehrlich v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 801 F.Supp.2d 908 (C.D. Cal. 2010) ............................................................................ 21 Eli Lilly & Co. v. Roussel Corp., 23 F. Supp. 2d 460 (D.N.J. 1998) ................................................................................. 49 Fields v. Mobile Messengers Am., Inc., C 12-05160 WHA, 2013 WL 6774076 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2013) .............................. 47 Forcellati v. Hyland’s, Inc., 876 F. Supp. 2d 1155 (C.D. Cal. 2012) ........................................................................ 33 In re Ford Tailgate Litig., No. 11-cv-02953-RS, 2015 WL 7571772 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2015) ......................... 27 Fowler v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 2 F. Supp. 3d 965 (S.D. Tex. 2014) ........................................................................ 41, 43 Gabriel v. Giant Eagle, Inc., 124 F. Supp. 3d 550 (W.D. Pa. 2015) ........................................................................... 48 Giercyk v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa, No. 13-6272, 2015 WL 7871165 (D.N.J. Dec. 4, 2015) .............................................. 48 Glidden Co. v. Jandernoa, 5 F.Supp.2d 541 (W.D. Mich. 1998) ............................................................................ 50 Gonzales v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2:14-cv-00088-GMN-VCF, 2015 WL 4744432 (D. Nev. Aug. 10, 2015) .................. 32 Gonzales v. Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC, 532 F. Supp. 2d 1200 (C.D. Cal. 2006) ........................................................................ 10 Hall v. Sea World Entm’t, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-660-CAB-RBB, 2015 WL 9659911 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2015) ............................................................................................................................. 22 Harris v. Sand Canyon Corp., 274 F.R.D. 556 (D.S.C. 2010) ...................................................................................... 38 Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 6 of 65 Page ID #:536 vii Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Havird Oil Co. v. Marathon Oil Co., Inc., 149 F.3d 283 (4th Cir. 1998) ........................................................................................ 38 Hendricks v. DSW Shoe Warehouse, Inc., 444 F.Supp.2d 775 (W.D. Mich. 2006) ........................................................................ 31 Hughes v. Panasonic Consumer Elec. Co., No. 10-846 (SDW), 2011 WL 2976839 (D.N.J. July 21, 2011) .................................. 35 Jurista v. Amerinox Processing, Inc. (D.N.J. 2013) 492 B.R. 707 .............................................................................. 44, 45, 46 K & N Eng’g, Inc. v. Spectre Performance, No. EDCV 09-01900-VAP (DRBx), 2011 WL 4387094 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2011) ....................................................................................................................... 18 Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................ 11, 15 L.A. Taxi Cooperative, Inc. v. Uber Techs., 114 F. Supp. 3d 852 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .......................................................................... 18 Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1377 (2014) ............................................................................................. 16, 17 Lieberman v. Emigrant Mortg. Co., 436 F. Supp. 2d 357 (D. Conn. 2006) ........................................................................... 44 Little Oil Co., Inc. v. Atl. Richfield Co., 852 F.2d 441 (9th Cir. 1988) ........................................................................................ 21 Lombardo v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Cos., 124 F. Supp. 3d 1283 (S.D. Fla. 2015) ................................................................... 26, 27 Mallory v. McCarthy & Holthus, LLP, 2:14-CV-00396-KJD, 2015 WL 2185413 (D. Nev. May 11, 2015) ............................ 33 Mancina v. Goodell, No. 12-2512, 2013 WL 393041 (E.D. La. Jan. 30, 2013) .......................................... 5, 6 Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002) ........................................................................................ 18 Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2010) ................................................................................... 5, 6, 7 Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 7 of 65 Page ID #:537 viii Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 McBride v. Fannie Mae, No. 2:14-CV-0776-JAM-CMK, 2016 WL 3019308 (E.D. Cal. May 26, 2016) ......................................................................................................... 8 McKinniss v. Sunny Delight Beverages, Co., No. CV-07-02034-RGK (JCx), 2007 WL 4766525 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 4, 2007) ................................................................................................................ 13 Midfield Concession Enterprises, Inc. v. Areas USA, Inc., 130 F.Supp. 3d 1122 (E.D. Mich.) ............................................................................... 44 Montalvo v. LT’s Benjamin Records, Inc., 56 F. Supp. 3d 121 (D.P.R. 2014) ................................................................................ 44 Montgomery v. New Piper Aircraft, Inc., 209 F.R.D. 211 (S.D. Fla. 2002) ................................................................................... 27 Muniz v. Nat’l Can Corp., 737 F.2d 145 (1st Cir. 1984) ......................................................................................... 43 Nat’l Rural Telecomm. Co-op. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 319 F.Supp.2d 1059 (C.D. Cal. 2003) .......................................................................... 21 Neubronner v. Milken, 6 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 1993) ............................................................................................ 12 Newcal Indus., Inc. v. IKON Office Solution, 513 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................... 17 Ocaso, S.A., Compañia De Seguros Y Reaseguros v. Puerto Rico Mar. Shipping Auth., 915 F. Supp. 1244 (D.P.R. 1996) ........................................................................... 46, 47 In re Palm Beach Fin. Partners, L.P., 517 B.R. 310 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2013) .......................................................................... 50 Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp., 237 F. Supp. 2d 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) .......................................................................... 36 Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n, 494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007) .......................................................................................... 3 Picus v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 256 F.R.D. 651 (D. Nev. 2009) .................................................................................... 32 Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 8 of 65 Page ID #:538 ix Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Preira v. Bancorp Bank, 885 F. Supp. 2d 672 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) .......................................................................... 37 Presidio Enterprises Inc. v. Warner Bros. Distributing Corp., 784 F.2d 674 (5th Cir. 1986) ........................................................................................ 13 Rhynes v. Stryker Corp., No. 10-5619 SC, 2011 WL 2149095 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2011) ................................. 21 In re Sanofi-Aventis Sec. Litig., 774 F. Supp. 2d 549 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) .......................................................................... 13 Seko Air Freight, Inc. v. Transworld Sys. Inc., 22 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 1994) ............................................................................................ 5 Shah v. Racetrac Petroleum Co., 338 F.3d 557 (6th Cir. 2003) ........................................................................................ 41 In re Sony Gaming Networks & Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 996 F. Supp. 2d 942 (S.D. Cal. 2014) ........................................................................... 28 In re Sony Grand Wega KDF-E A10/A20 Series Rear Projection HDTV Television Litig., 758 F. Supp. 2d 1077 (S.D. Cal. 2010) ........................................................................ 22 Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir.1997) ....................................................................................... 12 Spector v. Mondelez Int’l, Inc., No. 15 C 4298, 2016 WL 1270493 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2016) ................................ 28, 29 Spiro v. Healthport Techs., LLC, 73 F.Supp.3d 259 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) .............................................................................. 36 Sunoptic Techs., LLC v. Integra Luxtec, Inc., No. 3:08-CV-878-J-16 JRK, 2009 WL 722320 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 18, 2009) ................ 49 Tait v. BSH Home Appliances Corp., 289 F.R.D. 466 (C.D. Cal. 2012) .................................................................................. 23 Tatung Co., Ltd. v. Shu Tze Hsu, 43 F. Supp. 3d 1036 (C.D. Cal. 2014) .......................................................................... 12 Tomek v. Apple, Inc., 2:11-cv-02700-MCE-DAD, 2012 WL 2857035 (E.D. Cal. July 11, 2012) ................. 47 Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 9 of 65 Page ID #:539 x Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In re Toshiba Am. HD DVD Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. 08-939 (DRD), 2009 WL 2940081 (D.N.J. Sept. 11, 2009) ................................. 35 TYR Sport, Inc. v. Warnaco Swimwear, Inc., 709 F.Supp.2d 821 (C.D. Cal. 2010) ............................................................................ 13 United States v. Sequel Contractors, Inc., 402 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (C.D. Cal. 2005) ........................................................................ 11 Valle v. Am. Int’l Ins. Co., 108 D.P.R. 692 (1979) .................................................................................................. 43 Virgilio v. Ryland Group, Inc., 680 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................... 26 Walsh v. Seaboard Sur. Co., 94 F. Supp. 2d 205 (D. Conn. 2000) ............................................................................. 24 Ward v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., No. 4:14-cv-30-SKL, 2015 WL 1193217 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 16, 2015) ........................ 40 Webb v. UnumProvident Corp., 507 F. Supp. 2d 668 (W.D. Tex. 2005) .................................................................. 42, 43 Westernbank Puerto Rico v. Kachkar, CIV07-1606 ADC/BJM, 2009 WL 6337949 (D.P.R. Dec. 10, 2009) ................... 46, 47 WMCV Phase 3, LLC v. Shushok & McCoy, Inc., 750 F. Supp. 2d 1180 (D. Nev. 2010) ..................................................................... 44, 45 ZeeBaas, LLC v. Koelewyn, No. 3:11cv11(VLB), 2012 WL 2327693 (D. Conn. June 19, 2012) ...................... 24, 26 Zlotnick v. Premier Sales Group, Inc., 480 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2007) .............................................................................. 26, 27 Zodda v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., No.13-7738 (FSH), 2014 WL 1577694 (D.N.J. Apr. 21, 2014) (New Jersey) ........................................................................................................................... 50 Zuckerman Family Farms, Inc. v. Bidart Bros., No. 1:14-cv-01529-AWI-BAM, 2014 WL 7239423 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2014) ......................................................................................................... 15, 17 Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 10 of 65 Page ID #:540 xi Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 State Cases Beder v. Cleveland Browns, Inc., 717 N.E.2d 716 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998) ............................................................................ 5 Berryman v. Merit Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 152 Cal. App. 4th 1544 (2007) ..................................................................................... 20 Bickett v. Buffalo Bills, Inc., 472 N.Y.S.2d 245 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1983) ..................................................................... 5, 7 Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543 (2009) ...................................................................................................... 33 Buller v. Sutter Health, 160 Cal. App. 4th 981 (2008) ....................................................................................... 19 Castillo v. Tyson, 701 N.Y.S.2d 423 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000) .................................................................. 4, 6 Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163 (1999) .................................................................................................. 20 Charpentier v. Los Angeles Rams Football Co., Inc., 75 Cal. App. 4th 301 (Cal. App. 1999) ........................................................................... 5 Cox v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 138 N.J. 2 (1994) .......................................................................................................... 33 Daugherty v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 144 Cal. App. 4th 824 (2006) ....................................................................................... 19 Domestic Sewing Mach. Co. v. Jackson, 83 Tenn. 418 (1885) ...................................................................................................... 41 Downes-Patterson Corp. v. First Nat’l Supermarkets, Inc., 64 Conn. App. 417 (2001) ............................................................................................ 25 Early Detection Ctr., P.C., v. New York Life Ins. Co., 157 Mich. App. 618 (1986) .......................................................................................... 49 Earp v. Detroit, 16 Mich. App. 271 (1969) ............................................................................................ 50 Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 11 of 65 Page ID #:541 xii Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Estremera v. Immobiliaria Rac Inc., 109 P.R. Dec. 852 (1980) ............................................................................................. 43 Freeman Indus., LLC v. Eastman Chem. Co., 172 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2005) ................................................................................ 44, 45 Gregory v. Albertson’s, Inc., 104 Cal. App. 4th 845 (2002) ....................................................................................... 20 Hackworth v. Greywood at Hammett, LLC, 385 S.C. 110 (Ct. App. 2009) ....................................................................................... 49 Health Promotion Specialists, LLC v. S.C. Bd. of Dentistry, 403 S.C. 623 (2013) ...................................................................................................... 38 Hotel and Motel Holdings, LLC v. BJC Enters., LLC, 414 S.C. 635 (Ct. App. 2015) ....................................................................................... 49 M & D, Inc. v. McConkey, 231 Mich. App. 22 (1998) ............................................................................................ 50 Mary E. Bivins Found. v. Highland Capital Mgmt. L.P., 451 S.W.3d 104 (Tex. App. 2014) .......................................................................... 44, 45 Nat’l Amusements, Inc. v. New Jersey Tpk. Auth., 261 N.J. Super. 468 (Ch. Div. 1992), aff’d, 275 N.J. Super. 134 (App. Div. 1994) ..................................................................................................................... 46 Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co., 201 Ill.2d 134 (2001) .................................................................................................... 29 Perez v. Hung Kien Luu, 244 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. App. 2007) ................................................................................ 42 Pye v. Estate of Fox, 369 S.C. 555 (2006) ...................................................................................................... 48 R.M. Dudley Const. Co., Inc. v. Dawson, 258 S.W.3d 694 (Tex. App. 2008) ................................................................................ 46 Raimi v. Furlong, 702 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) ...................................................................... 48, 50 Roche v. Blair, 305 Mich. 608 (Mich. 1943) ......................................................................................... 50 Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 12 of 65 Page ID #:542 xiii Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Rollins, Inc. v. Butland, 951 So. 2d 860 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006) ................................................................. 26, 27, 28 Searle v. Wyndham Int’l, Inc., 102 Cal. App. 4th 1327 (2002) ..................................................................................... 19 Shadoan v. World Sav. & Loan Assn., 219 Cal. App. 3d 97 (1990) .......................................................................................... 21 Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., Inc., 94 N.Y. 2d 43 (Ct. App. 1999) ............................................................................... 36, 37 Stern v. Cleveland Browns Football Club, No. 95-L-196, 1996 WL 761163 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 20, 1996) .................................. 5 Strauss v. Long Island Sports, Inc., 401 N.Y.S.2d 233 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978) ...................................................................... 5 Vertex, Inc. v. City of Waterbury, 278 Conn. 557 (2006) ................................................................................................... 45 Walker v. Sunrise Pontiac-GMC Truck, Inc., 249 S.W.3d 301 (Tenn. 2008) ...................................................................................... 40 White v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 368 Ill.App.3d 278 (2006) ............................................................................................ 29 Wilens v. TD Waterhouse Group, Inc., 120 Cal. App. 4th 746 (2003) ....................................................................................... 20 Williams v. Heuser Chiropractic, No. 12-02-00019-CV, 2004 WL 100462 (Tex. App. Jan. 21, 2004) ........................... 42 Zine v. Chrysler Corp., 236 Mich. App. 261 (1999) .......................................................................................... 30 Federal Statutes 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) ........................................................................................................... 15 15 U.S.C. § 1127 ................................................................................................................ 16 State Statutes 815 Illinois Compiled Statutes § 505/2 .............................................................................. 28 Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 13 of 65 Page ID #:543 xiv Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 31 Laws of Puerto Rico Annotated §2993 ......................................................................... 43 31 Laws of Puerto Rico Annotated §2996 ......................................................................... 43 31 Laws of Puerto Rico Annotated § 5141 ........................................................................ 46 California Business & Professions Code § 17200 ............................................................. 19 California Business & Professions Code § 17204 ............................................................. 20 California Business & Professions Code § 17500 ............................................................. 19 California Business & Professions Code § 17535 ............................................................. 20 California Civil Code § 1750 ............................................................................................. 19 California Civil Code § 1780(d) ........................................................................................ 22 Connecticut General Statutes Annotated § 42-110a .................................................... 23, 25 Connecticut General Statutes § 42-110(g) ......................................................................... 24 Florida Statutes § 501.204(1) ....................................................................................... 26, 27 Florida Statutes § 501.211(2) ............................................................................................. 27 Michigan Compiled Laws § 445.903(1)(s) .................................................................. 30, 31 Nevada Revised Statutes § 598.0915 ..................................................................... 31, 32, 33 Nevada Revised Statutes § 41.600(1) ................................................................................ 31 Nevada Revised Statutes § 41.600(2) ................................................................................ 32 New Jersey Statutes Annotated § 56:1 .............................................................................. 33 New Jersey Statutes Annotated § 56:8-2 ........................................................................... 34 New York General Business Law § 349 ................................................................ 35, 36, 37 New York General Business Law § 349(a) ....................................................................... 35 Puerto Rico Civil Code § 182 ............................................................................................ 46 Puerto Rico Civil Code § 393 ...................................................................................... 43, 44 South Carolina Code of Laws Annotated §§ 39-5-10 ....................................................... 37 Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 14 of 65 Page ID #:544 xv Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 South Carolina Code of Laws § 39-5-140(a) ..................................................................... 38 South Carolina Code of Laws § 39-5-20(a) ....................................................................... 38 Tennessee Code Annotated § 47-18-101 ........................................................................... 39 Tennessee Code Annotated § 47-18-104 ........................................................................... 40 Tennessee Code Annotated § 47-18-109 ........................................................................... 40 Texas Business & Commerce Code Annotated § 17.46 .............................................. 41, 42 Texas Business & Commerce Code Annotated § 17.41 .................................................... 41 Rules Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 8 .......................................................... 8, 10, 11, 12 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 8(a) ........................................................................ 8 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 9 .......................................................................... 12 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 9(b) .............................. 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 44, 48 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(6) ............................................................. 2, 3 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23 ........................................................................ 40 Regulations Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies § 42-110b-18 ................................................ 25 Constitutional Provisions U.S. Constitution, First Amendment ................................................................................. 18 Other Authorities Ben Thompson, Pacquiao Camp Compromised; Details of Training Leaked?, Fighthype.com, May 1, 2015, http://fighthype.com/mayweather-vs-pacquiao/pacquiao-camp- leaked.html ...................................................................................................................... 9 Freddie Roach: Floyd Mayweather Had a Spy in our Camp,YouTube (April 15, 2015), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T045wZhVIuM ................................... 9 GOOD and SERVICE, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) ............................... 23, 32 Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 15 of 65 Page ID #:545 1 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 INTRODUCTION “Every unfortunate event does not give rise to a lawsuit.”1 Beginning three days after the Mayweather vs. Pacquiao prize fight and continuing in the weeks and months that followed, Plaintiffs in these actions have struggled to articulate legally cognizable claims against champion Floyd Mayweather and his promotions company, Mayweather Promotions LLC.2 They have failed because not every unfortunate event creates a cause of action. Taking Plaintiffs’ allegations as true for purposes of this Motion: It was unfortunate that Manny Pacquiao sustained a shoulder injury during his training camp.3 It was unfortunate that he then chose to hide his injury from his opponent, the public, and the Nevada Athletic Commission. It was unfortunate that he used his injury as an excuse to the media after he lost the 12-round title fight on points. Yes, this is all unfortunate. But, as set out below, such events simply do not give rise to legally sustainable claims against the Mayweather Defendants. The Mayweather vs. Pacquiao prize fight was a highly-anticipated, long-awaited, and media-driven boxing match that took place on May 2, 2015, in Las Vegas, Nevada (the “Fight”). Plaintiffs’ attempts, as sports fans, to hold the Mayweather Defendants liable for their dissatisfaction with the Fight uniformly fail. Unfortunately for Plaintiffs, their claims lack any support in the law and their allegations are insufficient to state a claim under any theory they have advanced. Mr. Mayweather and Mayweather 1 Attributed to Judge Mills Lane, who is both a former Nevada state court judge and long-serving professional boxing referee who oversaw hundreds of fights and scores of championship fights during his 40-year career. 2 Mayweather Promotions is the Nevada-based company that promotes Mr. Mayweather’s championship fights and undercards, which often feature his boxing gym’s fighters. 3 The Mayweather Defendants do not know whether Mr. Pacquiao was in fact injured and, as discussed below, see infra pp. 9-10, did not and could not have known his medical condition. The facts alleged are taken as true for purposes of this Motion only. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 16 of 65 Page ID #:546 2 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Promotions LLC (together, the “Mayweather Defendants”) move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6) and ask this Court to dismiss with prejudice each claim asserted against them in each of the lawsuits currently pending in this MDL proceeding.4 STATEMENT OF FACTS5 Plaintiffs in each case consist of individual sports fans who either purchased tickets to watch the Fight live,6 purchased the ability to view the Fight via Pay-Per-View (“PPV”) through their local service provider,7 or are restaurants/bars who purchased PPV rights for their establishment and patrons.8 Mr. Mayweather is an American boxer and former Olympian and Golden Gloves Champion who has never lost a prize fight and was rated the best pound-for-pound boxer in the world. Compl. ¶¶40, 47.9 Mayweather Promotions is Mr. Mayweather’s promoter. Id. ¶41. After the Fight, Mr. Pacquiao disclosed to the media that he had injured his shoulder weeks before. Id. ¶¶4, 70, 71. Plaintiffs allege they were “deceptively induced” to purchase tickets or PPV for the Fight because Mr. Pacquiao did not disclose this injury 4 This MDL is comprised of 15 separate lawsuits (the “Complaints”), each of which is identified in the chart attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Ruth Bahe-Jachna. (Docket Entry 145-3) This Exhibit also identifies each claim the Mayweather Defendants are moving to dismiss. 5 The facts alleged are taken as true for purposes of this Motion only, and only to the extent they are well plead. The Court should not accept as true unreasonable inferences or legal conclusions masquerading as factual allegations. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 553-56 (2007). 6 See Decl. of R. Bahe-Jachna, Ex. A, Row 15. 7 See Decl. of R. Bahe-Jachna, Ex. A, Rows 1 through 13. 8 See Decl. of R. Bahe-Jachna, Ex. A, Row 14. 9 Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to Plaintiffs’ allegations in the Complaints are to the Mahoney Complaint, see Decl. of R. Bahe-Jachna, Ex. A, Row 1. Attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Ruth Bahe-Jachna is a chart setting out where the same allegation is found in each of the 14 other Complaints that are the subject of this Motion to Dismiss. (Docket Entry 145-4) Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 17 of 65 Page ID #:547 3 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 prior to the Fight. Id. ¶2. Only 11 of the more than 200 paragraphs in these Complaints relate specifically to the Mayweather Defendants. See id. ¶¶108-18. Five allegations form the basis of Plaintiffs’ claims that the Mayweather Defendants knew of Mr. Pacquiao’s torn rotator cuff injury prior to the Fight: (1) a post-fight interview where Mr. Mayweather said he knew “everything” going on in Mr. Pacquiao’s training camp, id. ¶110; (2) Mr. Mayweather’s comment to the media that Mr. Pacquiao had gone for a run in Sunset Park rather than at UNLV, id. ¶112; (3) a comment by Leonard Ellerbe, CEO of Mayweather Promotions, that “I know everything that’s happening [in Mr. Pacquiao’s training camp],” id. ¶111; (4) allegations there was a “mole” in Mr. Pacquiao’s camp, id. ¶110; and (5) Mr. Pacquiao’s claim that Mr. Mayweather was “targeting” his injury during the Fight, id. ¶115. Plaintiffs also allege the Mayweather Defendants made statements hyping the Fight.10 LEGAL STANDARD A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper where there is either a “lack of a cognizable legal theory” or “the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). “[T]he court need not accept conclusory allegations of law or unwarranted inferences, and dismissal is required if the facts are insufficient to support a cognizable claim.” Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n, 494 F.3d 788, 794 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. In addition, the “tenet that a court must accept as true” all allegations does not apply to legal conclusions, as “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements…supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice,” and the “mere possibility of misconduct” is insufficient. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679-80 (2009) (emphasis added). Moreover, “[w]here a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely 10 Specifically, after the alleged date of Mr. Pacquiao’s injury, Mr. Mayweather is alleged to have said the Fight would be “the biggest fight in boxing history...the biggest event in sports history…an event you cannot miss.” Id. ¶118. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 18 of 65 Page ID #:548 4 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 consistent with’ a defendant’s liability, it ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’“ Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly) (emphasis added). ARGUMENT I. THE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE A REMEDY FOR DISGRUNTLED SPORTS FANS. Judge Lane could easily have had the boxing world in mind when he uttered his now-famous quote. Plaintiffs ask this Court to find that their disappointment as sports fans is actionable, but neither existing case law nor public policy supports a legal remedy for claims that likewise were based on “unfortunate events.” Courts that have been faced with these types of claims by disgruntled fans have uniformly rejected them, as should this Court. A. Case Law Rejects Plaintiffs’ Claims as Disappointed Sports Fans. “The uniform weight of established case law holds that a failure to satisfy the subjective expectations of spectators at a sporting event is not actionable under law.” Bowers v. Fed’n Internationale de l’Automobile, 461 F. Supp. 2d 855, 859 (S.D. Ind. 2006), aff’d, 489 F.3d 316 (7th Cir. 2007). Courts repeatedly have rejected attempts by sports fans to circumvent this rule. In Castillo v. Tyson, fans filed a class action lawsuit after boxer Mike Tyson was disqualified early in the fight for biting off a portion of his opponent’s ear. 701 N.Y.S.2d 423 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). The Castillo putative class of fans asserted numerous claims, including that they were “entitled to view a ‘legitimate heavyweight title fight’ fought ‘in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations’ of the governing boxing commission….” Id. at 424. The fans further claimed that promotional statements predicting a “sensational victory” and “the biggest fight of all time” implied there would be a “legitimate fight.” Id. The lower court rejected each cause of action and dismissed the case, and the Appellate Division affirmed, noting a boxer’s disqualification is a result a fight fan reasonably can expect when watching a boxing match. See id. Similarly, in connection with an NFL controversy dubbed “Spygate,” the Third Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 19 of 65 Page ID #:549 5 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Circuit affirmed a 12(b)(6) dismissal of a sports fan lawsuit, finding the plaintiff-fan did not set forth a legally cognizable right, interest, or injury by alleging the Patriots versus Jets games were tainted after the Patriots were found to have been videotaping signals given by Jets coaches in violation of NFL regulations. See Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2010) (affirming dismissal of class action lawsuit filed by “disappointed football fan and season ticket holder”). The Third Circuit held the “overwhelming weight of the case law” favored defendants. Id. at 235-36; see also Bowers, 489 F.3d 316 (affirming dismissal of racing fans’ putative class action over a planned 20-car race being reduced to six cars, and noting that having received a proper race, plaintiffs admitted they had “no additional right to a race that was exciting or drivers that competed well”); Mancina v. Goodell, No. 12-2512, 2013 WL 393041 (E.D. La. Jan. 30, 2013) (granting a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a putative class action by a New Orleans Saints ticketholder against the NFL based on poor team performance after “Bountygate”-imposed sanctions, and holding plaintiff had no right to sue for his purported injuries, but instead could speak out against the NFL).11 Likewise, Plaintiffs here attempt to create legal claims based on a theory of disappointed expectations at a sporting event. The essence of their claims is that the Fight was less exciting than it should have been because Mr. Pacquiao failed to disclose his injury. But when fans purchase a PPV event or buy tickets to a live fight, there are many uncertainties. A boxer could, amongst other things: suffer a first round knockout; be 11 Many similar arguments by season ticketholders upset about “unfortunate events” likewise have failed. See, e.g., Charpentier v. Los Angeles Rams Football Co., Inc., 75 Cal. App. 4th 301 (Cal. App. 1999); Beder v. Cleveland Browns, Inc., 717 N.E.2d 716 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998); Stern v. Cleveland Browns Football Club, No. 95-L-196, 1996 WL 761163 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 20, 1996); Bickett v. Buffalo Bills, Inc., 472 N.Y.S.2d 245 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1983); Strauss v. Long Island Sports, Inc., 401 N.Y.S.2d 233 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978). In a different context, Judge Easterbrook famously remarked “That the Chicago Cubs turn out to be the doormat of the National League would not entitle the ticket holder to a refund for the remaining games, any more than the star tenor’s laryngitis entitles the opera goer to a refund when the understudy takes over the role.” See Seko Air Freight, Inc. v. Transworld Sys. Inc., 22 F.3d 773, 774 (7th Cir. 1994). Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 20 of 65 Page ID #:550 6 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 seriously injured such that the match must be stopped; be disqualified for biting or other rules infractions; be caught cheating by using banned substances or “loaded” gloves; or dominate the match, rendering it insufferably boring. As with a boxer fighting injured, these are all known risks sports fans take into account in deciding whether to pay to view an event. Indeed, courts have held that a ticket to an event confers only the right to view what transpires. In Mayer, the Third Circuit explained plaintiff “possessed either a license or, at best, a contractual right to enter Giants Stadium and to have a seat from which to watch a professional football game.” 605 F.3d at 236. Because Plaintiff Mayer was permitted to enter the stadium and watch an NFL game, the court held he suffered “no cognizable injury to a legally protected right or interest” and dismissed the case, despite the fact the Patriots had broken NFL rules by surreptitiously videotaping the Jets’ hand signals. See id.; see also Mancina, 2013 WL 393041, *2 (noting plaintiff’s ticket granted entry into the stadium and a spectator seat for the NFL game, and plaintiff did not claim he was denied entry or a seat); Castillo, 701 N.Y.S.2d at 425 (“plaintiffs received what they paid for, namely, ‘the right to view whatever event transpired’“). Here, as in Mayer, Plaintiffs got what they paid for: the ability to watch the Fight (live or on PPV). The law is clear: a fan’s disappointment with the quality or outcome of a sports event does not give rise to an actionable legal claim - “[n]ot every unfortunate event gives rise to a lawsuit.” B. Public Policy Supports Rejection of These Sports Fans’ Claims. Important public policy considerations also dictate these cases be dismissed. Assuming for purposes of this Motion Mr. Pacquiao’s shoulder injury should have been disclosed prior to the Fight, any consequences for non-disclosure should come from the Nevada Athletic Commission, not the judicial system. As the Third Circuit explained, rules violations in sports are not within the province of the courts, but of the relevant sports association or its officials; there are “no real standards or criteria that a legal decision-maker may use to determine when a particular rule violation gives rise to an Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 21 of 65 Page ID #:551 7 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 actionable claim.” Mayer, 605 F.3d at 237. Courts should not decide whether an athlete is “injured enough” to report it, or whether a referee’s call was the “right” one. At least in this specific context, it is not the role of judges and juries to be second-guessing the decision taken by a professional sports league purportedly enforcing its own rules. In fact, we generally lack the knowledge, experience, and tools in which to engage in such an inquiry. … This Court refuses to countenance a course of action that would only further burden already limited judicial resources and force professional sports organizations and related individuals to expend money, time, and resources to defend against such litigation. Id. In dismissing Mayer’s complaint, the Third Circuit pointed out that he and the other fans were not left without a remedy, as they “could speak out against the Patriots, their coach, and the NFL itself. In fact, they could even go so far as to refuse to purchase tickets or NFL-related merchandise. However, the one thing they cannot do is bring a legal action in a court of law.” Id. (internal quotation omitted).12 In other words, “[n]ot every unfortunate event gives rise to a lawsuit.” Sports fans simply are not vested with a private right of action any time an athlete or coach breaks a sports rule or makes a decision counter to the fans’ preferences. Here, Plaintiffs would have this Court go even further by bestowing sports fans with a legal claim against not merely an athlete who failed to disclose his own injury, but against that athlete’s opponent. It is indeed telling that no prior lawsuits have been found where such a claim has even been asserted (much less successfully), and evidence of just how desperate these Plaintiffs are that they would venture into the realm of the absurd. In sum, the Fight was not unique. Sporting events are always filled with variables and uncertainty. For decades, American courts have rejected Plaintiffs’ theories, 12 As one court noted, there are “dire consequences” of allowing lawsuits based on diminished quality of play: “If the fan (plaintiff) wins against the Bills, every lawyer in Western New York could use the precedent to finance a vacation on the Riviera.” See Bickett, 472 N.Y.S.2d at 248 (quotation omitted). Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 22 of 65 Page ID #:552 8 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 recognizing what Judge Lane articulated. There is no legal or policy reason this Court should stray from this prior, straightforward, and consistent precedent. II. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS FAIL TO SATISFY PLEADING STANDARDS. A. Rule 8(a): The Court Must Disregard Conclusory Allegations and Unsupported Inferences. As noted above, to state a claim, a plaintiff must cross the line from possible to plausible; allegations consistent with innocent behavior or with wrongdoing stop short of stating an actionable claim. See supra pp. 3-4 (citing Iqbal and Twombly). Rule 8 also requires a plaintiff, when suing multiple defendants, to “set[] forth defendants’ specific wrongdoing to provide fair notice as to what each defendant is to defend” rather than lumping defendants together and failing to distinguish alleged wrongs among defendants. McBride v. Fannie Mae, No. 2:14-CV-0776-JAM-CMK, 2016 WL 3019308, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 26, 2016); see also infra pp. 10-11. Plaintiffs’ allegations fall woefully short of this standard. In each claim asserted against the Mayweather Defendants, Plaintiffs’ allegations of wrongdoing are consistently stated as “Defendants’ misrepresentations, individually and collectively” or “Defendants’ deceptive omissions” or the conduct is attributed simply to “Defendants” or “certain Defendants.” See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶2-3, 6-7, 10-12, 17, 20-21, 32-33, 59, 68, 71, 73, 75-76, 145, 149-57, 159-60, etc. Each Complaint also has a section titled “Defendants’ Intent.” Compl. ¶¶181-82. Again, in every Complaint, these allegations are couched in terms of “Defendants” generally and lack the requisite specificity. Id. Against this backdrop of vague, generalized, and conclusory allegations, Plaintiffs offer only five allegations specifically directed to the Mayweather Defendants to support the idea that Mr. Mayweather and Mayweather Promotions knew of Mr. Pacquiao’s injury before the Fight. See supra p. 3. None of those allegations is sufficient to satisfy Rule 8(a) (or Rule 9(b)) pleading standards. First, broad statements by Leonard Ellerbe and Mr. Mayweather of “know[ing] everything” occurring in Mr. Pacquiao’s training camp are consistent with trying to “psych out” Mr. Pacquiao by exaggerating Mr. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 23 of 65 Page ID #:553 9 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Mayweather’s own power. Likewise, observing that a celebrity like Mr. Pacquiao went for a run in one public place as opposed to another is not necessarily indicative of intimate knowledge of Mr. Pacquiao’s every move. Also, the “mole” theory is strained at best; it was first suggested by a reporter and lacks supporting facts to raise it above speculation.13 Even taken as true for purposes of this Motion, there is no allegation, nor could there be, that the mole would have had access to Mr. Pacquiao’s medical records, physicians, or medical prognoses.14 Nor does Mr. Pacquiao’s statement that Mr. Mayweather must have known about the injury because he targeted Mr. Pacquiao’s shoulder during the Fight, Compl. ¶116, cure these deficiencies. Even taken as true, the allegation does not support inferring any pre-Fight knowledge. Any professional boxer of Mr. Mayweather’s caliber would readily detect an opponent’s physical reaction and weakness or vulnerability during a fight and seek to exploit it. It is telling that the only allegations suggesting the Mayweather Defendants had pre-Fight knowledge of Mr. Pacquiao’s injury are plead “upon information and belief.” Compl. ¶¶108, 109, 113. Plaintiffs do not allege facts showing that the Mayweather Defendants: (1) knew Mr. Pacquiao had MRI testing; (2) knew Mr. Pacquiao had been examined by an orthopedic surgeon; (3) knew Mr. Pacquiao had been diagnosed with a torn rotator cuff; (4) had access to Mr. Pacquiao’s doctors’ observations and diagnoses or his medical records; (5) knew of Mr. Pacquiao’s doctors’ recommendations regarding his 13 See Freddie Roach: Floyd Mayweather Had a Spy in our Camp, YouTube (April 15, 2015), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T045wZhVIuM, at 3:33 minutes to 4:05 minutes; included as Tab 81 on Plaintiffs’ Index of Articles Cited in their Consolidated Master Class Action Complaints (hereafter “Plaintiffs’ Index”). 14 Plaintiffs’ allegations actually refute the idea of mole feeding information back to the Mayweather Defendants. For example, Plaintiffs cite an interview in which Mr. Pacquiao’s trainer, Freddie Roach, remarked about the guy he sent home (the purported “mole”): “He lasted one day. It took me a little while to recognize him and I say, ‘Hey! Wait a minute! Your trainer works for Mayweather.’“ Id.; see also Ben Thompson, Pacquiao Camp Compromised; Details of Training Leaked?, Fighthype.com, May 1, 2015, http://fighthype.com/mayweather-vs-pacquiao/pacquiao-camp-leaked.html; included as Tab 78 on Plaintiffs’ Index. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 24 of 65 Page ID #:554 10 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 fight-worthiness; or (6) knew the details of Mr. Pacquiao’s modified training regime in light of his injury. At best, taking Plaintiffs’ allegations as true for purposes of this Motion, but disregarding conclusory allegations and unsupported inferences, one can infer nothing beyond knowledge by the Mayweather Defendants that Mr. Pacquiao was having a “rough” training camp. Id. ¶111.15 Similarly, there are no facts alleged to support Plaintiffs’ conspiracy theory. See infra p. 47-48. This is the best Plaintiffs have to offer. Plaintiffs would like the Court to infer from their limited allegations that if Mr. Mayweather knew “everything,” he must have known the intimate details of Mr. Pacquiao’s medical condition and prognosis. But this is the very kind of speculation prohibited by Iqbal and Twombly. In sum, Plaintiffs fail to satisfy the threshold pleading standards of Rule 8 and Iqbal/Twombly. Plaintiffs’ allegations offer nothing more than speculation and facts equally consistent with inactionable conduct, and their claims should be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-58 (where no right to relief, “‘this basic deficiency should…be exposed at the point of minimum expenditure of time and money by the parties and the court’“) (internal quotation omitted). The allegations simply do not give rise to a claim under any legal theory. B. Rule 9(b): The Heightened Pleading Requirement Applies to Each Complaint as a Whole. Plaintiffs also fail to plead fraud with particularity as required by Rule 9(b). See Rule 9(b). This heightened standard is required so a defendant can prepare an adequate response to the allegations. Gonzales v. Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC, 532 F. Supp. 2d 1200, 1206 (C.D. Cal. 2006). Where, as here, “plaintiff…allege[s] a unified course of fraudulent conduct and rel[ies] entirely on that course of conduct as the basis of that 15 Plaintiffs’ allegations also point to other pieces of information that suggest Mr. Pacquiao’s injury had improved. See Compl. ¶¶70, 73 (Mr. Pacquiao saying his shoulder tear “got better but it wasn’t 100%”; Mr. Roach saying Mr. Pacquiao “is in great shape and he’s ready to fight”). Under Plaintiffs’ theory, the Mayweather Defendants also would have known these things. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 25 of 65 Page ID #:555 11 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 claim…the claim is said to be ‘grounded in fraud’ or to ‘sound in fraud,’ and the pleading…as a whole must satisfy the particularity requirement of Rule 9(b).” Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 2009) (emphasis added) (citation omitted). Each Complaint here is based on an alleged unified course of fraudulent conduct, and relies on that conduct as the basis of all claims asserted. See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶181-82. Thus, all claims, not just those explicitly alleging fraud, must be pled with particularity. See Kearns, 567 F.3d at 1125. This Court should look to the various state laws to determine whether the elements of a particular claim have been pled, but because federal procedural law applies, the Court must apply Rule 9(b) in determining whether the allegations are sufficient to state a claim. Id. at 1126-27. To satisfy Rule 9(b), Plaintiffs must allege “‘the time, place, and specific content of the false representations as well as the identities of the parties to the misrepresentation.’“ Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1066 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted); see also Kearns, 567 F.3d at 1126 (“the who, what, when, where, and how of the misconduct alleged” is needed); United States v. Sequel Contractors, Inc., 402 F. Supp. 2d 1142, 1147 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (Klausner, J.) (same). Moreover, and as noted above under Rule 8’s pleading standard, Plaintiffs fail to satisfy Rule 9(b) when they lump multiple defendants together rather than differentiating their allegations as to each defendant. Destfino v. Reiswig, 630 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted) (dismissal where plaintiffs made “everyone did everything” allegations instead of attributing specific fraudulent statements or conduct to a specific defendant). Plaintiffs here make no attempt to satisfy this requirement, especially as to the Mayweather Defendants. Almost all of the allegations relating to wrongdoing are generic assertions of collective conduct by “Defendants” or in some cases “certain Defendants.” E.g., Compl. ¶¶2-3, 6-7, 10-12, 17, 20-21, 32-33, 59, 68, 71, 73, 75-76, 145, 149-57, 159- 60, 181-82, etc., see also supra p. 8. Similarly, Plaintiffs allege that “Defendants had agreed not to disclose any facts regarding the shoulder injury prior to that post-Fight press conference,” but this appears to refer only to Messrs. Pacquiao, Arum, and Roach. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 26 of 65 Page ID #:556 12 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 See id. ¶71. Other allegations clearly do not involve the Mayweather Defendants, such as “Top Rank was responsible for actions and decisions that led to the failure of Defendants to disclose Mr. Pacquiao’s serious shoulder injury prior to the Fight,” id. ¶35, and “Postponement of the Fight was secretly and confidentially discussed amongst certain Defendants but was ultimately decided against,” id. ¶6 (identifying Freddie Roach and Michael Koncz as members of Mr. Pacquiao’s team wishing that the Fight had been postponed). Finally, allegations of fraud based on information and belief do not satisfy Rule 9(b). Neubronner v. Milken, 6 F.3d 666, 672 (9th Cir. 1993). At a minimum, a plaintiff must “state the factual basis for the belief.” Id.; see also Tatung Co., Ltd. v. Shu Tze Hsu, 43 F. Supp. 3d 1036, 1063 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (dismissing civil conspiracy to commit fraud claim because plaintiff failed to give factual basis for pleading on information and belief). Here, the most essential allegations against the Mayweather Defendants are based on “information and belief,” Compl. ¶¶108-09, 113, and Plaintiffs fail to offer any factual basis for this limitation. See also supra p. 9-10. The above pleading deficiencies are fatal to Plaintiffs’ claims and only serve to underscore the fact that the allegations simply do not give rise to a claim under any legal theory. III. PLAINTIFFS’ FRAUD CLAIMS FAIL. Unwilling to accept the concept that not every “unfortunate event” gives rise to a lawsuit, Plaintiffs pursue various fraud-based claims under the Lanham Act and 11 states’ consumer fraud/deceptive practices statutes, as well as Puerto Rican common law. However, in addition to the pleading deficiencies noted above under Rules 8 and 9, these claims fail for additional reasons, as discussed below. A. Plaintiffs Rely on Non-Actionable Puffery. Plaintiffs’ claims also fail because they rely on statements that are nothing more than puffery – “exaggerated advertising, blustering, and boasting upon which no reasonable buyer would rely.” Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir.1997). Truth or falsity of the statement is not the focus of the puffery Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 27 of 65 Page ID #:557 13 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 inquiry: “Whether a statement is puffery does not depend on the truth or falsity of a statement; it depends on the degree of generality or specificity.” See TYR Sport, Inc. v. Warnaco Swimwear, Inc., 709 F.Supp.2d 821, 830 (C.D. Cal. 2010). More bluntly, “‘[t]he ‘puffing’ rule amounts to a seller’s privilege to lie his head off, so long as he says nothing specific.’“ Id. at 830 (citation omitted). Whether a statement is puffery is appropriate for determination on a motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Cook, Perkiss and Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv., Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 245 (9th Cir. 1990); see also McKinniss v. Sunny Delight Beverages, Co., No. CV-07-02034-RGK (JCx), 2007 WL 4766525, at *3, 5 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 4, 2007) (Klausner, J.) (“If an alleged misrepresentation would not deceive a reasonable consumer or amounts to mere puffery, then any cause of action having deception as an element may be addressed, as a matter of law, on a motion to dismiss.”). Here, within the relevant timeframe,16 the only statements about the Fight that Plaintiffs appear to attribute to the Mayweather Defendants are that it would be: (1) the “Fight of the Century,” and (2) “the biggest fight in boxing history...the biggest event in sports history…an event you cannot miss.”17 Compl. ¶¶2, 73, 118. These statements are nothing more than subjective predictions, and are prime examples of classic puffery: general, not specific; subjective, not objective; exaggerated blustering. No reasonable consumer could rely upon such statements. See, e.g., Presidio Enterprises Inc. v. Warner Bros. Distributing Corp., 784 F.2d 674, 681 (5th Cir. 1986) (claim that a movie would be “biggest and best” was non-actionable, noting there are multiple ways something can be 16 Pre-Fight, post-injury - Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Pacquiao was injured in early April 2015. Compl. ¶ 3. 17 To the extent Plaintiffs also intend to argue that they were misled by Mr. Ellerbe’s statement that he knew “everything” going on in Mr. Pacquiao’s camp, this also is puffery. See In re Sanofi-Aventis Sec. Litig., 774 F. Supp. 2d 549, 565 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (holding the statement “You know everything concerning [a drug]” is “mere puffery”) (emphasis added) (citation omitted); ConsulNet Computing, Inc. v. Moore, No. 04-3485, 2007 WL 2702446, at *9-10 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 12, 2007) (“We take care of everything” non-actionable puffery and not misrepresentation). Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 28 of 65 Page ID #:558 14 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “biggest”); Cork v. Marriott Int’l Inc., 426 F. Supp. 2d 1234, 1245-46 (N.D. Ala. 2006) (“biggest and best” was opinion and not actionable fraud). “An event you cannot miss” means nothing; this was not the first, nor is it likely to be the last, boxing match referred to as “the Fight of the Century.” These statements are classic puffery and cannot give rise to any viable claim against the Mayweather Defendants. B. No Duty Exists, and None Should be Created. Although Plaintiffs’ claims baldly assume a duty on the part of the Mayweather Defendants to disclose information they may have had concerning Mr. Pacquiao’s medical condition, no such duty exists. Nor should this Court create such a duty. As discussed below, see infra pp. 19-44, many states require a plaintiff to show that a defendant had a duty to disclose the allegedly omitted fact before liability will be imposed for nondisclosure. Here, imposing such a duty would be bad public policy. It would be impracticable and unwieldy to create legal liability for athletes who do not disclose their own injuries to the public before competition; Plaintiffs take this notion further - to absurdity - by seeking to impose a duty upon the injured athlete’s opponent. Disclosure of injuries is handled by professional sports entities via their own policies, collective bargaining agreements, employment contracts, and the like. If an athlete breaches those policies, he/she is subject to the associated consequences. It would be a waste of judicial resources, to say the least, to find a right of action for sports fans based on a purported nondisclosure of injury. Further, personal medical information typically is closely held and not made available to the public. Creating new legal liability for an athlete who does not disclose the injuries of his opponent to the public would be counter to social norms, established public policy, and certain laws. Moreover, it could potentially expose the athlete to liability for revealing the information (under privacy laws) while simultaneously exposing the athlete to liability for not revealing the information (under state consumer fraud statutes). For all these reasons, this Court should decline to impose such a duty. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 29 of 65 Page ID #:559 15 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C. Plaintiffs’ Allegations do Not Satisfy Rule 9(b). Rule 9(b) applies to all of the claims asserted by Plaintiffs, see supra p. 10-11. None of Plaintiffs’ fraud claims are supported by the specifics required to satisfy this heightened pleading standard. As discussed above, see supra pp. 11-12, conspicuously absent from Plaintiffs’ allegations are the essentials - “the who, what, when, where, and how” of the alleged fraud. Kearns, 567 F.3d at 1124. Instead, Plaintiffs try to slip by with generalized allegations as to “Defendants,” lumping the Mayweather Defendants together with the six other Defendants. D. Plaintiffs Fail to State a Claim Under the Lanham Act. In Jammers, Plaintiffs assert a claim for violation of the Lanham Act on behalf of a putative nationwide class of commercial entities who showed the Fight in their bars and restaurants via PPV.18 The Jammers Plaintiffs also assert claims on behalf of two putative subclasses of commercial entities - in California and New York.19 The Jammers Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Here, Plaintiffs assert a false advertising claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). To state such a claim, Plaintiffs must allege the following five elements: (1) a false statement of fact by the defendant in a commercial advertisement about its own or another’s product; (2) the statement actually deceived or has the tendency to deceive a substantial segment of its audience; (3) the deception is material, in that it is likely to influence the purchasing decision; (4) the defendant caused its false statement to enter interstate commerce; and (5) the plaintiff has been or is likely to be injured as a result of the false statement, either by direct diversion of sales from itself to defendant or by a lessening of the goodwill associated with its products. Zuckerman Family Farms, Inc. v. Bidart Bros., No. 1:14-cv-01529-AWI-BAM, 2014 WL 7239423, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2014). Plaintiffs’ Lanham Act claim fails because: (1) Plaintiffs are not within the Act’s 18 See Decl. of R. Bahe-Jachna, Ex. A, Row 14. 19 Id. The arguments addressing the claims of these two subclasses are set out below under the California and New York sections. See infra pp. 19-23 and 35-37. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 30 of 65 Page ID #:560 16 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “zone of interests” and, therefore, lack standing; (2) Plaintiffs do not allege any false statements by the Mayweather Defendants; (3) the Mayweather Defendants did not have a duty to disclose any information; and (4) the Mayweather Defendants’ statements are non-actionable protected First Amendment speech. Plaintiffs Lack Statutory Standing. Plaintiffs’ lack of statutory standing to bring a Lanham Act claim requires dismissal. The Supreme Court recently clarified the applicable test to determine who has standing to bring a claim for false advertising under the Lanham Act: “[A] plaintiff must plead (and ultimately prove) an injury to a commercial interest in sales or business reputation proximately caused by the defendant’s misrepresentations.” Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1377, 1395 (2014). Here, Plaintiffs complain that “[b]ut for the Fight, Plaintiffs would have enjoyed a typical, busy Saturday night.” Compl. ¶186.20 Elaborating, they allege that because of Defendants’ “false advertisements and deceptive conduct,” Plaintiffs’ typical food and beverage sales were diverted because Defendants “encourage[ed] consumers to stay home and purchase a consumer PPV package of the Fight.” Id. ¶188. “[A] statutory cause of action extends only to plaintiffs whose interests ‘fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.’“ Lexmark, 134 S.Ct. at 1388 (citation omitted). The Act’s intent is “to protect persons engaged in such commerce against unfair competition[.]” 15 U.S.C. § 1127. Plaintiffs cite this section as the basis for their Lanham Act claim. Compl. ¶181. Here, there is no act of unfair competition. The only competition apparent from Plaintiffs’ allegations is whether a sports fan views the Fight via PPV at home or via PPV at a commercial entity. In either case, the “product” – the PPV showing of the Fight – comes from the same source, and there is no competing product offered by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs conclusorily allege that they “incurred reputational damage due to 20 All citations to the Complaint in this Section are to the Jammers Complaint, see Decl. of R. Bahe-Jachna, Ex. A, Row 14. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 31 of 65 Page ID #:561 17 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants’ conduct and now patrons are less likely to frequent sports bars and restaurants like Flight and 48 Lounge for future PPV fights and sporting events resulting in the loss of sales.” Id. ¶184. But this allegation is premised on Plaintiffs’ dissatisfaction with the Fight as a product. As made clear in Lexmark, “a business misled by a supplier into purchasing an inferior product is…not under the Act’s aegis.” Lexmark, 134 S.Ct. at 1390. “[A] statutory cause of action is limited to plaintiffs whose injuries are proximately caused by violations of the statute.” Id. at 1390. For Lanham Act claims, plaintiff “must show economic or reputational injury flowing directly from the deception wrought by the defendant’s advertising; and that that occurs when deception of consumers causes them to withhold trade from the plaintiff.” Id. at 1391. Here, there is no injury because there was no deceptive advertising or encouragement to withhold trade.21 No False Statements of Fact are Alleged. The Lanham Act only applies to literally false or implicitly false statements of fact, and Plaintiffs do not point to any from the Mayweather Defendants. See Zuckerman Family Farms, 2014 WL 7239423, at *8. The only statement in the Jammers Complaint attributed to one of the Mayweather Defendants is a quote from Mr. Mayweather at a press conference saying the Fight will be the biggest fight in boxing history. Compl. ¶115. This statement is not a fact, it is a prediction. As such, it is not actionable. It also is not false – as a prediction, it turned out to be pretty accurate. Finally, this statement also is puffery, see supra pp. 12-14, and for that additional reason is not actionable under the Lanham Act. See, e.g., Newcal Indus., Inc. v. IKON Office Solution, 513 F.3d 1038, 1053 (9th Cir. 2008) (a “subjective claim about a product is non-actionable puffery”). The Mayweather Defendants had no Duty to Disclose. Plaintiffs offer no support for the duty they allege, Compl. ¶149, and there is no duty. A claim under the Lanham 21 Plaintiffs make an unsubstantiated claim that their sales were lower on May 2, 2015. Compl. ¶191. They offer no facts demonstrating merit to this claim or that the Mayweather Defendants engaged in deceptive practices resulting in customers withholding trade. In reality, Plaintiffs’ claim alleges injury from the mere promotion of an event of public interest. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 32 of 65 Page ID #:562 18 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Act cannot be based on omission of a fact. See K & N Eng’g, Inc. v. Spectre Performance, No. EDCV 09-01900-VAP (DTBx), 2011 WL 4387094, at *18 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2011) (citation omitted) (“A simple failure to disclose is not a violation of the Lanham Act because the absence of any statement is neither ‘false’ nor a ‘representation.’“). The Statements are Non-Actionable First Amendment Speech. The statements Plaintiffs rely upon with respect to the Mayweather Defendants are all statements made to the media; as such, they are not actionable because they were not commercial speech but rather an exercise of First Amendment rights. See L.A. Taxi Cooperative, Inc. v. Uber Techs., 114 F. Supp. 3d 852, 863 (N.D. Cal. 2015). “If speech is not ‘purely commercial’ – that is, if it does more than propose a commercial transaction – then it is entitled to full First Amendment protection.” Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894, 906 (9th Cir. 2002). “Statements made to the media and published in a journalist’s news article concerning a matter of public importance are not commercial speech, and are protected under the First Amendment.” L.A. Taxi Cooperative, Inc., 114 F. Supp. 3d at 863. Plaintiffs Fail to Plead with Specificity under Rule 9(b). Plaintiffs do not plead facts with enough specificity to meet the heightened pleading standards of Rule 9(b). AccuImage Diagnostics Corp. v. TeraRecon, Inc., 260 F. Supp. 2d 941, 948-49 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (dismissing Lanham Act claim for failure to plead sufficient facts where the complaint did not allege any facts regarding the location, timing, or content of the allegedly false statements, but merely mimicked the elements of the cause of action). For all of these reasons, Plaintiffs have not and cannot state a claim under the Lanham Act, and the Jammers Complaint should be dismissed. E. Plaintiffs Fail to State a Claim Under any State’s Consumer Fraud Statute. Plaintiffs have asserted claims for violation of a consumer fraud/deceptive practices act in 11 states.22 For the reasons set out below, each should be dismissed. 22 See Decl. of R. Bahe-Jachna, Ex. A, Rows 1-8, 11-15. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 33 of 65 Page ID #:563 19 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i. California In Mahoney,23 Plaintiffs, as California PPV consumers, assert claims for alleged violations of: (1) the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.); and (2) the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) (Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq.). The Mahoney Plaintiffs allege that Defendants knew prior to the Fight but did not disclose that Mr. Pacquiao had a serious shoulder injury. Mahoney Compl. ¶¶183- 203.24 In Jammers,25 Plaintiffs, commercial entities who purchased PPV showings of the Fight for their commercial establishments, assert a claim under the UCL and California’s False Advertising Law (“FAL”) (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500), based on the same allegations. Jammers Compl. ¶¶204-38. The claims fail for the reasons set out below. Plaintiffs’ Other Causes of Action Fail and Cannot Support a UCL Claim for Unlawful Practices. Plaintiffs allege the Mayweather Defendants committed an “unlawful practice” by omissions, concealment, or suppression of material facts or violations of laws (e.g., Lanham Act, False Advertising Law, California Business &Professions Code). See generally Mahoney Compl. ¶218; Jammers Compl. ¶¶ 228-38. However, as discussed throughout this Memorandum, each of Plaintiffs’ other causes of action fail and, accordingly, this claim also fails. See Searle v. Wyndham Int’l, Inc., 102 Cal. App. 4th 1327, 1333-34 (2002) (because defendants’ actions did not violate the law, those actions could not serve as a predicate “unlawful” act). Plaintiffs Fail to Allege a Duty to Disclose Necessary to Support Their UCL Claim. California courts reject UCL claims premised on omission of fact when there is no affirmative duty to disclose. Buller v. Sutter Health, 160 Cal. App. 4th 981, 986 (2008); see also Daugherty v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 144 Cal. App. 4th 824, 838 (2006), 23 See Decl. of R. Bahe-Jachna, Ex. A, Row 1. 24 In this Section, citations to the Complaint will be to either the Mahoney Complaint, Decl. of R. Bahe-Jachna, Ex. A, Row 1 (“Mahoney Compl.”) or the Jammers Complaint, Decl. of R. Bahe-Jachna, Ex. A, Row 14 (“Jammers Compl.”). 25 See Decl. of R. Bahe-Jachna, Ex. A, Row 14. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 34 of 65 Page ID #:564 20 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 as modified (Nov. 8, 2006) (“We cannot agree that a failure to disclose a fact one has no affirmative duty to disclose is ‘likely to deceive’ anyone within the meaning of the UCL.”). The Mayweather Defendants had no duty to disclose in this case. See supra p. 14. Plaintiffs’ UCL Claim for Fraudulent Practices Necessarily Fails. “California courts have viewed fraudulent concealment actions under [the UCL] with some skepticism.” Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008). Plaintiffs’ allegations fail to identify any fraudulent conduct on the part of the Mayweather Defendants. See supra p. 10-12. Plaintiffs Fail to Allege a Claim for an Unfair Practice. Most courts agree that, after the California Supreme Court’s decision in Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163 (1999), a claim asserted under the “unfairness” prong of the UCL must be “‘tethered’ to [a] specific constitutional, statutory or regulatory provision[].” Gregory v. Albertson’s, Inc., 104 Cal. App. 4th 845, 854 (2002). When alleging an “unfair practice” under the UCL, “[t]he burden is on the plaintiffs to show why [defendant] was not permitted to” act as it did. Berryman v. Merit Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 152 Cal. App. 4th 1544, 1555 (2007). Here, Plaintiffs fail to identify any “specific constitutional, statutory or regulatory provision[]” violated by the Mayweather Defendants. See generally Mahoney Compl. ¶219; Jammers Compl. ¶¶206- 23. Plaintiffs Fail to Allege Causation as Required Under the UCL, FAL and CLRA. A plaintiff asserting claims under the UCL or FAL must have “lost money or property as a result of” the alleged unfair competition. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§17204 and 17535 (emphasis added). The same is true under the CLRA. Wilens v. TD Waterhouse Group, Inc., 120 Cal. App. 4th 746, 754 (2003) (“Relief under the CLRA is specifically limited to those who suffer damage, making causation a necessary element of proof.”) The Complaints contains just 11 paragraphs that specifically address the Mayweather Defendants’ actions. Mahoney Compl. ¶¶108-18; Jammers Compl. ¶¶105-15. None of Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 35 of 65 Page ID #:565 21 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 these allegations suggests Plaintiffs relied on any statements of the Mayweather Defendants. As such, these claims must be dismissed. See, e.g., Ehrlich v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 801 F.Supp.2d 908, 919 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (finding no causation when “[p]laintiff does not allege that…he reviewed any…material that might have contained a disclosure”). Plaintiffs Fail to Allege that the Mayweather Defendants’ Actions were Likely to Deceive Members of the Public. To state a claim under either the UCL or FAL based on false advertising or promotional practices, it is necessary to show that members of the public are likely to be deceived. Chip-Mender, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., No. C 05- 3465 PJH, 2006 WL 13058, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2006) (citation omitted). Plaintiffs fail to allege how the Mayweather Defendants’ silence regarding Mr. Mayweather’s opponent’s injury was likely to deceive members of the public. Plaintiffs Rely on Non-Actionable Puffery. Plaintiffs’ claims sounding in fraud are based on statements touting the Fight as “the biggest fight in boxing history,” Mahoney Compl. ¶118; Jammers Compl. ¶115, and the like. Such statements are non- actionable “puffery.” See supra pp. 12-14. The UCL and FAL only Provide for Equitable Relief. “The UCL only provides equitable remedies.” Rhynes v. Stryker Corp., No. 10-5619 SC, 2011 WL 2149095, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2011). Plaintiffs claim to be entitled to non-equitable relief that is not available as a matter of law. Mahoney Compl. ¶223; see also Jammers Compl. ¶238. Plaintiffs are not permitted to seek damages or attorneys’ fees under the UCL. See, e.g., Nat’l Rural Telecomm. Co-op. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 319 F.Supp.2d 1059, 1078 (C.D. Cal. 2003); Shadoan v. World Sav. & Loan Assn., 219 Cal. App. 3d 97, 107-08 n.7, 268 Cal. Rptr. 207 (1990), reh’g denied and opinion modified (Apr. 26, 1990). The remedial scheme under the FAL is “virtually identical” to that under the UCL. E.W. French & Sons, Inc. v. Gen. Portland Inc., 885 F.2d 1392, 1401 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiffs’ claims to these non-equitable forms of relief under the FAL fail as a matter of law. Little Oil Co., Inc. v. Atl. Richfield Co., 852 F.2d 441, 445 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal of Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 36 of 65 Page ID #:566 22 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 claims because “no private right of action for damages exists under [UCL and FAL] and [] the claims for injunctive relief were moot”). Plaintiffs Fail to Allege the Likelihood of Injury Necessary for Injunctive Relief. To pursue injunctive relief, Plaintiffs must allege a “sufficient likelihood that [they] will again be wronged in a similar way.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111 (1983). Courts routinely dismiss injunctive relief claims because there is no likelihood of a plaintiff being injured again. See, e.g., Burns v. Tristar Prods., Inc., No. 14-cv-749- BAS-DHB, 2014 WL 3728115, at *3 (S.D. Cal. July 25, 2014); Bird v. First Alert, Inc., No. C 14-3585 PJH, 2014 WL 7248734, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2014). Plaintiffs do not attempt to allege a likelihood that they will be injured again - the Fight was a one- time occurrence. Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief must be dismissed. Mahoney Plaintiffs Fail to File Required Affidavit in Support of CLRA Claim. The CLRA requires that “concurrently with the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff shall file an affidavit stating facts showing that the action has been commenced in a county described in this section as a proper place for the trial of the action.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1780(d). “If a plaintiff fails to file the affidavit required by this section, the court shall, upon its own motion or upon motion of any party, dismiss the action, without prejudice.” Id. The Mahoney Plaintiffs have not filed the required affidavits, so their CLRA claims must be dismissed. See In re Sony Grand Wega KDF-E A10/A20 Series Rear Projection HDTV Television Litig., 758 F. Supp. 2d 1077, 1094 (S.D. Cal. 2010). A PPV License to View is Not a Good or Service under the CLRA. The license to view the Fight via PPV is neither a good nor a service within the meaning of the CLRA. Claims under the CLRA are regularly dismissed when the transaction at issue does not involve a good or service. See, e.g., Hall v. Sea World Entm’t, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-660- CAB-RBB, 2015 WL 9659911, at *15 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2015) (dismissing CLRA claim with prejudice because tickets that provided “admission to the parks” were not goods or services). It is clear that what Plaintiffs purchased - a license to view the Fight via PPV - is neither “tangible or movable personal property” nor “[l]abor performed in Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 37 of 65 Page ID #:567 23 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the interest or under the direction of others.” GOOD and SERVICE, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). As such, the CLRA claim must be dismissed. The Mayweather Defendants did not have a Duty to Disclose under the CLRA. When a CLRA claim is premised on an omission, the omission must be either: (1) ”contrary to a representation actually made by the defendant”; or (2) “an omission of a fact the defendant was obliged to disclose.” Tait v. BSH Home Appliances Corp., 289 F.R.D. 466, 480 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (citation omitted). The Mahoney Complaint contains no allegation that the Mayweather Defendants made any representation regarding Mr. Pacquiao’s health. As such, they must allege an obligation to disclose. Id. An obligation to disclose exists “(1) when the defendant is the plaintiff’s fiduciary; (2) when the defendant has exclusive knowledge of material facts not known or reasonably accessible to the plaintiff; (3) when the defendant actively conceals a material fact from the plaintiff; [or] (4) when the defendant makes partial representations that are misleading because some other material fact has not been disclosed.” Id. (citations omitted). As discussed above, the Mayweather Defendants had no duty to disclose any information they may have had about Mr. Pacquiao’s injury. See supra p. 14. The Mayweather Defendants Made No Actionable Misrepresentations. Although the Mahoney Plaintiffs direct an affirmative misrepresentation claim “against all Defendants,” Plaintiffs make no specific allegations against the Mayweather Defendants. See Mahoney Compl. ¶¶ 246-65. In fact, they allege that “as a direct and proximate cause [sic] of Defendants Pacquiao’s and Top Rank’s conduct…Plaintiffs and Class members have been damaged….” Id. at ¶262. Further, if this claim is intended to be asserted against the Mayweather Defendants, Plaintiffs have not alleged any affirmative misrepresentations by the Mayweather Defendants. For all of these reasons, Plaintiffs have not and cannot state a claim under any of these statutory theories, and the claims should be dismissed. ii. Connecticut In Alessi, Plaintiff asserts a claim for violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 38 of 65 Page ID #:568 24 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Practices Act (“CUTPA”), Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 42-110a et seq., based on alleged “deceptive omissions, concealment and suppression of material facts” concerning Mr. Pacquiao’s injury. Compl. ¶185.26 This claim fails because: (1) it is unclear what specific conduct by the Mayweather Defendants Plaintiff relies upon as the basis for his CUTPA claim; (2) the allegations fail to show the Mayweather Defendants had access to information about Mr. Pacquiao’s injury; (3) the Mayweather Defendants had no duty to disclose the existence of an injury; and (4) Plaintiffs fail to allege the Mayweather Defendants’ conduct was the proximate cause of their alleged harm. To recover on a CUTPA claim, “‘plaintiffs must prove that (1) the defendant engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce…and [plaintiff suffered] ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of the defendant’s acts or practices.’“ ZeeBaas, LLC v. Koelewyn, No. 3:11cv11(VLB), 2012 WL 2327693, at *6 (D. Conn. June 19, 2012) (citation omitted) (alterations in original). “A practice is unfair (1) if it offends public policy as it has been established by statutes, the common law or otherwise, (2) if it is immoral, unethical oppressive or unscrupulous, or (3) if it causes substantial injury to consumers.” Walsh v. Seaboard Sur. Co., 94 F. Supp. 2d 205, 213 (D. Conn. 2000) “A practice is deceptive if it is a materially misleading representation, omission, or other practice that a consumer reasonably interpreted under the circumstances.” Id. “A plaintiff also must prove that the ascertainable loss was caused by, or ‘a result of,’ the prohibited act.” ZeeBaas, 2012 WL 2327693, at *6 (quoting Conn. Gen. Stat. §42-110(g)). Plaintiff Fails to Identify Specific Actionable Conduct. A CUTPA claim that merely recites the elements and incorporates by reference the prior general allegations “fail[s] to give fair notice to Defendant of what their CUTPA claim is and the ground upon which it rests,” and warrants dismissal. Id. at *7. Here, Plaintiff incorporates by reference all 65 pages of prior allegations, Compl. ¶178, then parrots the elements of a 26 All citations to the Complaint here are to the Alessi Complaint. See Decl. of R. Bahe- Jachna, Ex. A, Row 2. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 39 of 65 Page ID #:569 25 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CUTPA claim, making general conclusory allegations as to all Defendants. Compl. ¶¶179-97. There are no allegations specifically directed at the Mayweather Defendants. The claim does not identify advertising by the Mayweather Defendants that Plaintiff claims was deceptive pursuant to Conn. Agencies Regs. §42-110b-18, despite using the regulation as the basis of the CUTPA claim. The allegations do not explain how the Mayweather Defendants allegedly violated the CUTPA. Plaintiff Fails to Show the Mayweather Defendants had Access to Information About Mr. Pacquiao’s Injury. As discussed above, Plaintiff’s allegations do not show that the Mayweather Defendants had access to information about Mr. Pacquiao’s medical injury prior to the Fight. See supra pp. 9-10. This is fatal to his CUTPA claim. The Mayweather Defendants cannot be liable for omission of information they did not have. See A Slice of Pie Prods., LLC v. Wayans Bros. Entm’t, 392 F.Supp.2d 297, 312 (D. Conn. 2005) (granting motion to dismiss CUTPA claim because plaintiff failed to allege that defendant knew its statement was false or knew factual basis for defendant’s alleged wrongful conduct). The Mayweather Defendants did not have a Duty to Disclose Mr. Pacquiao’s Medical Condition. Plaintiff offers no legal authority to support his allegation the Mayweather Defendants had a duty to disclose information about Mr. Pacquiao’s injury. Compl. ¶190. “[T]he failure to disclose what one is not required to disclose does not violate public policy[.]” Downes-Patterson Corp. v. First Nat’l Supermarkets, Inc., 64 Conn. App. 417, 427 (2001) (collecting cases where CT courts found no violations of CUTPA for failure to disclose information the parties were under no legal obligation to disclose). Where, as here, Plaintiff alleges that “passive conduct violates CUTPA…common sense dictates that a court should inquire whether the defendant was under any obligation to do what it refrained from doing.” Id. As there is no legal authority imposing a duty to disclose a competitor’s medical condition, Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a CUTPA claim. Plaintiff does not Allege the Mayweather Defendants were the Proximate Cause Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 40 of 65 Page ID #:570 26 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of Harm. A CUTPA plaintiff must prove that an ascertainable loss was caused by, or ‘a result of,’ the prohibited act.” ZeeBaas, 2012 WL 2327693, at *6 (quoting §42-110g(a)). Plaintiff here seeks money damages and so must “show[] that the prohibited act was the proximate cause of a harm” to him. Id. at *6 (citation omitted). Plaintiff alleges an ascertainable loss, Compl. ¶¶194-96, but does not plead how the Mayweather Defendants caused it, relying instead on general allegations as to all Defendants, which warrants dismissal of the claim. ZeeBaas, WL 2327693, at *8. For all of these reasons, Plaintiff has not and cannot state a claim under CUTPA, and the claim should be dismissed. iii. Florida In Brady, Plaintiffs assert a claim for violation of the Florida Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”), Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1), alleging that “Defendants omitted material information concerning Pacquiao’s injuries and engaged in unconscionable, unfair, and/or deceptive acts by failing to disclose to Plaintiffs Pacquiao’s injuries.” Compl. ¶186.27 This claim fails because Plaintiffs fail to adequately allege: (1) a deceptive or unfair practice; (2) causation; and (3) actual damages. See Rollins, Inc. v. Butland, 951 So. 2d 860, 869 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006); Virgilio v. Ryland Group, Inc., 680 F.3d 1329, 1338 n.25 (11th Cir. 2012). No Deceptive or Unfair Practice. Plaintiffs must show “‘probable, not possible, deception’ that is ‘likely to cause injury to a reasonable relying consumer.’“ Zlotnick v. Premier Sales Group, Inc., 480 F.3d 1281, 1284 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming dismissal of FDUPTA claim) (citation omitted). “An unfair practice is ‘one that offends established public policy’ and “‘is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers.’“ Lombardo v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Cos., 124 F. Supp. 3d 1283, 1287 (S.D. Fla. 2015) (citation omitted). A “deceptive” practice is when a “representation, omission, or practice [] is likely to mislead the consumer acting 27 All citations to the Complaint here are to the Brady Complaint. See Decl. of R. Bahe- Jachna, Ex. A, Row 3. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 41 of 65 Page ID #:571 27 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 reasonably in the circumstances, to the consumer’s detriment.” Zlotnick, 480 F.3d at 1284 (citation omitted). Here, Plaintiffs fail to allege any actionable deceptive or unfair practice. Plaintiffs fail to allege an actionable injury, see infra pp. 27-28, and certainly nothing detrimental or “substantially injurious” to reasonable consumers. Thus, Plaintiffs’ claims fail as a matter of law. No Causation. Plaintiffs must plead they were injured by some “[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, or unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1), and requires proof of causation, Fla. Stat. § 501.211(2); see also Montgomery v. New Piper Aircraft, Inc., 209 F.R.D. 211, 229 (S.D. Fla. 2002) (“[T]he Court must determine that…each putative class member was exposed to the Defendants’ advertising and marketing materials alleged to constitute a deceptive trade practice.”); see also Fla. Stat. § 501.211(2) (A “person who has suffered a loss as a result of a violation of this part…may recover actual damages.”) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs base their claim on the Mayweather Defendants not disclosing Mr. Pacquiao’s injury, Compl. ¶190, but Plaintiffs do not assert how the purported omission caused their alleged injuries. Plaintiffs fail to allege any causal link between any actual knowledge of the Mayweather Defendants and any injury suffered by Plaintiffs, see Compl. ¶¶108, 115, and so fail to state a FDUTPA claim. See Lombardo, 124 F. Supp. 3d at 1290 (“causation is a necessary element of the FDUPTA claim, and []’must be direct, rather than remote or speculative’“) (citation omitted). No Actual Damages Alleged. Plaintiffs also must allege actual damages as part of their FDUTPA claims. Rollins, 951 So.2d at 869; In re Ford Tailgate Litig., No. 11-cv- 02953-RS, 2015 WL 7571772, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2015) (“actual damages is an essential element of a FDUTPA claim”); see also Fla. Stat. § 501.211(2). FDUTPA does not provide for recovery of nominal damages, speculative losses, or compensation for subjective feelings of disappointment. Rollins, 951 So.2d at 873. Actual damages are determined by the “‘difference in the market value of the product or service in the Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 42 of 65 Page ID #:572 28 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 condition in which it was delivered and its market value in the condition in which it should have been delivered according to the contract of the parties.’“ Id. at 869 (citation omitted). Plaintiffs here do not allege their actual damages. See, e.g., In re Sony Gaming Networks & Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 996 F. Supp. 2d 942, 993-94 (S.D. Cal. 2014) (dismissing FDUTPA damages claim for failure to allege market value-type damages). Plaintiffs’ “subjective feelings” are not compensable. For all of these reasons, Plaintiffs have not and cannot state a claim under FDUTPA, and the claim should be dismissed. iv. Illinois In Gomez, Plaintiffs assert a claim for violation of Section 2 of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“ICFA”), 815 ILCS 505/2, alleging “Defendants’ misrepresentations, individually and collectively, as set forth above, including that Pacquiao was healthy for the Fight, are deceptive and/or practices prohibited by Section 2 of the ICFA.” Compl. ¶182.28 This claim fails because: (1) Plaintiffs do not sufficiently allege the Mayweather Defendants engaged in a deceptive act or unfair practice; (2) the allegations fail to show the Mayweather Defendants had access to information about Mr. Pacquiao’s injury; and (3) Plaintiffs fail to any damage proximately caused by the Mayweather Defendants. Plaintiffs must allege “(1) a deceptive act or practice by the defendant, (2) the defendant’s intent that the plaintiff rely on the deception, (3) the occurrence of the deception in the course of conduct involving trade or commerce, and (4) actual damage to the plaintiff (5) proximately caused by the deception.” Spector v. Mondelez Int’l, Inc., No. 15 C 4298, 2016 WL 1270493, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2016). No Actionable Omission is Alleged. An omission claim requires Plaintiffs to allege facts sufficient to show not just the possibility of fraud, but that fraud is a 28 All citation to the Complaint here are to the Gomez Complaint. See Decl. of R. Bahe- Jachna, Ex. A, Row 4. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 43 of 65 Page ID #:573 29 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “necessary or probable inference from the facts alleged.” Spector, 2016 WL 1270493, at *9 (citation omitted). This heightened burden is designed to “‘weed out unmeritorious suits, and protect defendants from harm to their reputations.’“ Id. (citation omitted). Illinois courts will only find an omission of fact actionable under ICFA if it provides “an affirmatively ‘false impression.’“ Id. (citation omitted). Plaintiffs here fail to allege how the Mayweather Defendants’ silence regarding Mr. Pacquiao’s injury could be construed as providing an affirmatively false impression. The only alleged statement by the Mayweather Defendants about Mr. Pacquiao’s camp was that he was having “a very rough camp.” Compl. ¶108. This does not affirmatively create the impression that Mr. Pacquiao was in top form and in peak fitness going into the Fight. Plaintiffs Fail to Show the Mayweather Defendants had Access to Information About Mr. Pacquiao’s Injury. As discussed above, Plaintiffs’ allegations do not show that the Mayweather Defendants had access to information about Mr. Pacquiao’s medical injury prior to the Fight. See supra pp. 9-10. “[A]n action for fraudulent concealment logically demands that defendants have prior knowledge of the information that they are alleged to have suppressed.” White v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 368 Ill.App.3d 278, 285 (2006) (citations omitted). Plaintiffs Fail to Allege Proximate Causation. “[T]o properly plead the element of proximate causation in a private cause of action for deceptive advertising brought under the Act, a plaintiff must allege that he was, in some manner, deceived.” Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co., 201 Ill.2d 134, 155 (2001) (dismissing ICFA claim where the “amended class action complaint fails to allege that plaintiff was deceived by defendant’s advertisements”). Just 11 paragraphs specifically address the Mayweather Defendants’ actions. Compl. ¶¶105-15. None of these allegations suggests Plaintiffs relied on any statements of the Mayweather Defendants. For all of these reasons, Plaintiffs have not and cannot state a claim under ICFA, and the claim should be dismissed. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 44 of 65 Page ID #:574 30 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. Michigan In Bradley, Plaintiff asserts a claim for violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”), Mich. Comp. L. §445.903(1)(s), alleging Defendants failed to reveal a material fact - Mr. Pacquiao’s injury - resulting in misleading or deceiving consumers. Compl. ¶¶183, 185.29 This claim fails because Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege that: (1) the Mayweather Defendants had access to information about Mr. Pacquiao’s injury; (2) any information they had was material; (3) the Mayweather Defendants had a duty to disclose any information they had about Mr. Pacquiao’s injury; or (4) the Mayweather Defendants’ silence would tend to mislead or deceive consumers. To state an MCPA claim under §445.903(1)(s), Plaintiff must allege that the Mayweather Defendants: (1) failed to reveal a material fact; (2) this omission would tend to mislead or deceive the consumer; and (3) the fact could not reasonably be known by the consumer. M.C.L. §445.903(1)(s). Plaintiff Fails to Show the Mayweather Defendants had Access to Information About Mr. Pacquiao’s Injury. As discussed above, Plaintiffs’ allegations do not show that the Mayweather Defendants had access to information about Mr. Pacquiao’s medical injury prior to the Fight. See supra pp. 9-10. This is fatal to their MCPA claim. Plaintiff Fails to Allege the Mayweather Defendants had Information that was Material. “[A] material fact for purposes of the MCPA would…be one that is important to the transaction or affects the consumer’s decision to enter into the transaction.” Zine v. Chrysler Corp., 236 Mich. App. 261, 283 (1999). As discussed above, whatever information the Mayweather Defendants had concerning Mr. Pacquiao’s medical condition was limited, and not material. See supra pp. 9-10. Plaintiff’s allegations do not show the Mayweather Defendants had any pre-Fight knowledge about Mr. Pacquiao’s medical condition or fitness to fight on May 2, 2015. The Mayweather Defendants did not have a Duty to Disclose Mr. Pacquiao’s 29 All citations to the Complaint here are to the Bradley Complaint. See Decl. of R. Bahe- Jachna, Ex. A, Row 5. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 45 of 65 Page ID #:575 31 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Injury. Michigan courts do not recognize a claim under M.C.L. §445.903(1)(s) in the absence of a duty to disclose. Hendricks v. DSW Shoe Warehouse, Inc., 444 F.Supp.2d 775, 782 (W.D. Mich. 2006). Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants had a duty to disclose material facts to consumers,” Compl. ¶147, but offers no supporting allegations. Plaintiff Fails to Allege the Mayweather Defendants’ Silence Would Mislead or Deceive. The alleged omission of fact must “tend to mislead or deceive” under the statute. M.C.L. §445.903(1)(s). But Plaintiff does not allege how the Mayweather Defendants’ silence would tend to mislead or deceive here. Plaintiff does not allege reliance on the Mayweather Defendants’ silence, and it is unclear how consumers could be misled into believing Mr. Pacquiao was healthy because the Mayweather Defendants were silent. For all of these reasons, Plaintiff has not and cannot state a claim under MCPA, and the claim should be dismissed. vi. Nevada In Neidl, Plaintiff, a PPV customer, asserts claims for violation of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“NDTPA”), N.R.S. §598.0915 et seq,. under the provision of the Nevada Consumer Fraud Act (“NCFA”) allowing consumers to bring individual claims, N.R.S. §41.600(1). Plaintiff alleges Defendants knew that Mr. Pacquiao had a serious should injury prior to the Fight but did not disclose it. Neidl Compl. ¶¶178-97.30 In DeHart, Plaintiffs, who purchased tickets to attend the Fight live, also assert claims under the NDTPA and NCFA based on the same allegations. DeHart Compl. ¶¶178-95. All of these claims fail because: (1) a license to view a boxing match is not a “good or service” under the NDTPA; (2) Plaintiffs do not sufficiently plead the Mayweather Defendants’ knowledge under the NDTPA; (3) Plaintiffs fail to plead 30 All citations relating to the Nevada PPV putative class claim are to the Neidl Complaint. See Decl. of R. Bahe-Jachna, Ex. A, Row 6. All citations relating to the live attendees putative class claim are to the DeHart Complaint. See Decl. of R. Bahe-Jachna, Ex. A, Row 15. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 46 of 65 Page ID #:576 32 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 causation; and (4) Plaintiffs fail to plead an affirmative misrepresentation or a duty to disclose. In Neidl, Plaintiff specifically relies on N.R.S. §§598.0915(7) and 598.0923(2) for his statutory consumer fraud claims. In DeHart, Plaintiffs do not specify the base(s) for their claim; for this reason alone, the DeHart claim should be dismissed for failing to provide notice of the claims against the Mayweather Defendants.31 To state an NDTPA claim, Plaintiffs must allege “(1) an act of consumer fraud by the defendant (2) caused (3) damage to the plaintiff.” Picus v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 256 F.R.D. 651, 658 (D. Nev. 2009). The “act of consumer fraud” must be an act specifically enumerated in N.R.S. §41.600(2). Plaintiffs’ Allegations do Not Relate to a Good or Service. Both N.R.S. §§598.0915(7) and 598.0923(2) specifically relate to the sale or lease of goods or services. The NDTPA does not apply when the transaction at issue does not involve a good or service. Gonzales v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2:14-cv-00088-GMN-VCF, 2015 WL 4744432, at *3 (D. Nev. Aug. 10, 2015). Both Complaints make the conclusory allegation that the license to view the Fight on PPV or live was a “good[] or service[].” Neidl Compl. ¶182; DeHart Compl. ¶182. However, neither the statute nor case law defines the term “goods or services.” Using the Black’s Law Dictionary definition, it is clear that such a license is neither “tangible or movable personal property” nor “[l]abor performed in the interest or under the direction of others.” GOOD and SERVICE, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). As such, neither provision applies. Plaintiffs Fail to Show the Mayweather Defendants had Access to Information About Mr. Pacquiao’s Injury. As discussed above, Plaintiffs’ allegations do not show that the Mayweather Defendants had access to information about Mr. Pacquiao’s medical injury prior to the Fight. See supra pp. 9-10. Both provisions Plaintiffs rely upon specifically require knowledge. See N.R.S. §§598.0915(7) and 598.0923(2). 31 For purposes of this Motion, the Mayweather Defendants will assume the DeHart Plaintiffs intended to allege the same NDTPA sections as the Neidl Plaintiff. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 47 of 65 Page ID #:577 33 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs Fail to Allege Causation. Causation is an essential element of Plaintiffs’ NDTPA claim, but none of the allegations Plaintiffs specifically assert against the Mayweather Defendants indicates that Plaintiffs relied on any of the Mayweather Defendants’ statements. See Neidl Compl. ¶¶103-13; DeHart Compl. ¶¶106-16. Plaintiffs Fail to Allege an Affirmative Misrepresentation or Duty to Disclose. Plaintiffs’ claim under N.R.S. §§598.0915(7) requires either an affirmative misrepresentation or a duty to disclose. None of the 11 paragraphs addressing the Mayweather Defendants’ actions raises an affirmative misrepresentation. Neidl Compl. ¶¶103-13; DeHart Compl. ¶¶106-16. The Mayweather Defendants were under no duty to disclose any information. Under Nevada law, an omission is only actionable as a false representation “when a party is bound in good faith to disclose that material fact.” Mallory v. McCarthy & Holthus, LLP, 2:14-CV-00396-KJD, 2015 WL 2185413, at *3 (D. Nev. May 11, 2015). There is no authority in Nevada requiring an opponent to disclose the medical condition of another contestant and the Plaintiffs have cited none. For all of these reasons, Plaintiffs have not and cannot state a claim under any of these statutory theories, and the claims should be dismissed. vii. New Jersey In Bobadilla, Plaintiffs assert a claim for violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“NJCFA”), N.J. Stat. Ann. §§56:1 et seq. This claim fails because Plaintiffs fail to adequately allege that the Mayweather Defendants had: (1) knowledge of Mr. Pacquiao’s medical injury prior to the Fight; and (2) the requisite intent. To state a claim under the NJCFA, Plaintiffs must establish: ‘“1) unlawful conduct by defendant[s]; 2) an ascertainable loss by plaintiff; and 3) a causal relationship between the unlawful conduct and the ascertainable loss.”‘ Forcellati v. Hyland’s, Inc., 876 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1167 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (quoting Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543, 557 (2009)). Unlawful conduct has been defined to include “an affirmative act, a knowing omission, or a regulatory violation.” Forcellati, 876 F. Supp. 2d at 1167 (citing Cox v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 138 N.J. 2, 17 (1994)). Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 48 of 65 Page ID #:578 34 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Here, Plaintiffs base the unlawful conduct element on allegations that the Mayweather Defendants were aware of Mr. Pacquiao’s injury and knowingly omitted disclosure of that fact to the public with the intent to induce Plaintiffs into purchasing the PPV showing of the Fight. Compl. ¶¶187, 189, 192.32 Plaintiffs bring their NJCFA claim against the Mayweather Defendants under Section 56:8-2, which prohibits “the knowing concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression, or omission in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise ….” N.J. Stat. Ann. §56:8-2. Thus, Plaintiffs must establish both that the Mayweather Defendants knew Mr. Pacquiao had a medical condition and injury and also that the Mayweather Defendants knowingly omitted the fact with the intent to induce Plaintiffs to purchase PPV of the Fight. Plaintiffs’ allegations do not satisfy either of these requirements. Plaintiffs Fail to Show the Mayweather Defendants had Access to Information About Mr. Pacquiao’s Injury. As discussed above, Plaintiffs’ allegations do not show that the Mayweather Defendants had access to information about Mr. Pacquiao’s medical injury prior to the Fight. See supra pp. 9-10. ‘“[W]hen the alleged [consumer fraud] consists of an omission, the plaintiff must show that the defendant acted with knowledge, and intent is an essential element of the fraud.’“ Argabright v. Rheem Mfg. Co., No. 15- 5243 (JBS/AMD), 2016 WL 3536621, at *20, n.17 (D.N.J. June 28, 2016) (citation omitted). Without this knowledge, the Mayweather Defendants had no duty to disclose the medical injury to the public. Alban v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. Civ. 09-5398 (DRD), 2010 WL 3636253, at *10 (D.N.J. Sept. 8, 2010) (“Put simply, the NJCFA does not require [defendants] to disclose things they do not know.”). Plaintiffs Fail to Allege the Requisite Intent. Plaintiffs do not allege with specificity that the Mayweather Defendants acted with the requisite intent. Throughout, Plaintiffs allege: 32 All citations to the Complaint here are to the Bobadilla Complaint. See Decl. of R. Bahe-Jachna, Ex. A, Row 7. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 49 of 65 Page ID #:579 35 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants concealed, suppressed, and omitted material facts with intent that others, including the New Jersey Plaintiffs and the Class here, rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise. Compl. ¶178. These are conclusory assertions insufficient to show with specificity that the Mayweather Defendants in particular acted with intent. See Hughes v. Panasonic Consumer Elec. Co., No. 10-846 (SDW), 2011 WL 2976839, at *14 (D.N.J. July 21, 2011) (allegation that defendant knowingly concealed a defect with the intent consumers rely upon the concealment was insufficient to support a claim under the NJCFA); see also In re Toshiba Am. HD DVD Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. 08-939 (DRD), 2009 WL 2940081, at *11-13 (D.N.J. Sept. 11, 2009) (plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts to support allegations of Toshiba informational omissions). Absent allegations to adequately show both knowledge and intent, Plaintiffs fail to allege the Mayweather Defendants committed an unlawful act under the NJCFA, and the claim should be dismissed. viii. New York In Barrios,33 Plaintiffs assert a claim under New York General Business Law §349(a) (“GBL 349”), alleging Defendants failed to disclose Mr. Pacquiao’s shoulder injury before the Flight. Barrios Compl. ¶¶189-91.34 In Jammers,35 Plaintiffs, commercial entities who purchased PPV showings of the Fight for their commercial establishments, also assert a claim under GBL 349 based on the same allegations. Jammers Compl. ¶¶239-57. The deceptive conduct element of their GBL 349 claims are based on allegations that the Mayweather Defendants were aware of Mr. Pacquiao’s injury and knowingly failed to disclosure the fact to the public with the intent to induce Plaintiffs 33 See Decl. of R. Bahe-Jachna, Ex. A, Row 8. 34 In this Section, citations to the Complaint will be to either the Barrios Complaint, Decl. of R. Bahe-Jachna, Ex. A, Row 8 (“Barrios Compl.”) or the Jammers Complaint, Decl. of R. Bahe-Jachna, Ex. A, Row 14 (“Jammers Compl.”). 35 See Decl. of R. Bahe-Jachna, Ex. A, Row 14. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 50 of 65 Page ID #:580 36 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 into purchasing PPV showing of the Fight. Barrios Compl. ¶¶ 189-90, 194; Jammers Compl. ¶¶246-47, 251. Plaintiffs’ GBL 349 claims fail for at least two reasons: (1) Plaintiffs do not adequately allege that the Mayweather Defendants knew of Mr. Pacquiao’s medical injury; and (2) Plaintiffs do not allege an actual legal injury. To state a claim under GBL 349, “plaintiffs must allege that the defendants’ acts are (1) directed at consumers and (2) deceptive or misleading in a material way, and that (3) plaintiffs have been ‘injured by reason thereof.’“ Spiro v. Healthport Techs., LLC, 73 F.Supp.3d 259, 274 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (citation omitted). Deceptive conduct under GBL 349 is defined as either “representations or omissions…’likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.’“ Id. (citation omitted). Plaintiffs Fail to Show the Mayweather Defendants had Access to Information About Mr. Pacquiao’s Injury. As discussed above, Plaintiffs’ allegations do not show that the Mayweather Defendants had access to information about Mr. Pacquiao’s medical injury prior to the Fight. See supra pp. 9-10. It is inherent in actions under GBL 349 that the defendant must know of a material fact before it has the duty to disclose it to the public. See Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp., 237 F. Supp. 2d 512, 529 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (omissions are actionable “‘where the business alone possesses material information that is relevant to the consumer and fails to provide this information’“) (citation omitted); see also Catalano v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. 15-cv-4889 (KBF), 2016 WL 844832, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2016) (analyzing whether defendant had knowledge of defect for omission-based GBL 349 claim). For this reason alone, the GBL 349 claims fail. Plaintiffs Fail to Allege an Actual Injury. Plaintiffs also fail to allege an injury. To state a claim under GBL 349, a plaintiff must show “that ‘a material deceptive act or practice caused actual, although not necessarily pecuniary, harm.” Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., Inc., 94 N.Y. 2d 43, 55-56 (Ct. App. 1999) (citation omitted). In Small, the New York Court of Appeals rejected the theory that actual harm exists when a plaintiff makes a purchase she would not have made, absent the deceptive practice. Id. at 56. The Small plaintiffs brought claims against tobacco companies alleging that the companies’ Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 51 of 65 Page ID #:581 37 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 omission that nicotine was addictive “prevented them from making free and informed choices as consumers.” Id. Additionally, the plaintiffs alleged that had they known that nicotine was addictive, they would not have purchased cigarettes. Id. The court held that these allegations “contained no manifestation of either pecuniary or ‘actual harm’“ for purposes of GBL 349. Id. To have shown actual harm, the court found the plaintiffs should have sought recovery for injury to their health as a result of their addiction, or allege that the “cost of cigarettes was affected by the alleged misrepresentation.” Id. The Barrios and Jammers Plaintiffs allege the same injuries as plaintiffs in Small when they allege that “[h]ad [they] known that Defendant Pacquiao had been seriously injured they would not have purchased the Fight on pay-per-view or otherwise acted differently.” Barrios Compl. ¶196; Jammers Compl. ¶253. Plaintiffs also claim that they “lost their ability to make an informed and reasoned purchasing decision….” Barrios Compl. ¶197; Jammers Compl. ¶254. Their alleged damages include the “cost of the pay- per-view showing….” Barrios Compl. ¶200; Jammers Compl. ¶257. At no point do Plaintiffs allege actual harm outside of the theories already rejected in Small. See Preira v. Bancorp Bank, 885 F. Supp. 2d 672, 679-80 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (applying Small and holding that actual harm does not exist for “consumers who buy a product they would not have purchased absent a manufacturer’s deceptive commercial practices”); see also Bildstein v. MasterCard Int’l Inc., 329 F. Supp. 2d 410, 415-16 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (citation omitted) (holding that plaintiff failed to allege actual injury because plaintiff failed to show that defendant did not deliver service plaintiff paid for). Plaintiffs in Barrios and Jammers paid to view a boxing match and that is what they received. They do not allege injuries outside of the price of their PPV and thus they have failed to allege actual harm for purposes of GBL 349. For all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs have not and cannot state a claim under GBL 349, and the claims should be dismissed. ix. South Carolina In Thrailkill, Plaintiff asserts a claim for violation of the South Carolina Unfair Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 52 of 65 Page ID #:582 38 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Trade Practices Act (“SCUTPA”), S.C. Code Ann. §§39-5-10 et seq., based on Defendants’ alleged failure to disclose Mr. Pacquiao’s injury. Compl. ¶¶184, 186-89.36 This claim fails because: (1) Plaintiff cannot bring a class action under SCUTPA; (2) Plaintiff fails to identify unlawful conduct on the part of the Mayweather Defendants; and (3) Plaintiff fails to allege harm to the public interest. To state a claim under SCUTPA, “the plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that the defendant engaged in an unlawful trade practice, (2) that the plaintiff suffered actual, ascertainable damages as a result of the defendant’s use of the unlawful trade practice, and (3) that the unlawful trade practice engaged in by the defendant had an adverse impact on the public interest.” Havird Oil Co. v. Marathon Oil Co., Inc., 149 F.3d 283, 291 (4th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff Cannot Bring a Class Action under SCUTPA. SCUPTA permits a person who suffers a loss as a result of unlawful conduct under the Act to “bring an action individually, but not in a representative capacity, to recover actual damages.” S.C. Code § 39-5-140(a) (emphasis added). South Carolina state and federal courts interpret this provision to mean that “class action suits are forbidden under the Act….” Harris v. Sand Canyon Corp., 274 F.R.D. 556, 565 (D.S.C. 2010) (citation omitted). Thus, Plaintiff’s claim on behalf of a class is barred. Plaintiff Fails to Adequately Plead that the Mayweather Defendants Engaged in Unlawful Conduct. An act is unlawful under SCUTPA if it is either unfair or deceptive. See S.C. Code § 39-5-20(a). “‘An act is ‘unfair’ when it is offensive to public policy or when it is immoral, unethical, or oppressive’“ and “‘deceptive when it has a tendency to deceive.’“ Health Promotion Specialists, LLC v. S.C. Bd. of Dentistry, 403 S.C. 623, 638 (2013) (citation omitted). Plaintiff does not identify any specific action of the Mayweather Defendants that is either unfair or deceptive under SCUTPA. Plaintiff only offers as foundation for his claim that it is “based on [Defendants’] conduct described 36 All citations to the Complaint here are to the Thrailkill Complaint, Decl. of R. Bahe- Jachna, Ex. A, Row 11. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 53 of 65 Page ID #:583 39 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 above.” Compl. ¶179. Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff is relying on any statements made by the Mayweather Defendants, those statements are puffery and thus not actionable. Clarkson v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 761 F.2d 189, 191 (4th Cir. 1991) (“statutory prohibition of deceptive practices simply does not reach expected puffing of a [defendant’s] product”). Plaintiff Fails to Allege Harm to the Public Interest. “Under South Carolina law, unfair or deceptive acts have an adverse impact upon the [public] if those acts have the potential for repetition.” Ameristone Tile, LLC v. Ceramic Consulting Corp., 966 F. Supp. 2d 604, 621 (D.S.C. 2013) (citation omitted). A plaintiff can show potential for repetition by either ‘“showing the same kind of actions occurred in the past, thus making it likely they will continue to occur absent deterrence’ or ‘showing the company’s procedures created a potential for repetition of the unfair and deceptive acts.’“ Id. (citation omitted). Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants harmed the public interest through “multiple and repeated PPV buys” leading up to the Fight and that Defendants’ omissions were repeated “with respect to numerous Class members’ transactions.” Compl. ¶184. But all of that occurred in the past, and it does not demonstrate any potential for future repetition. See Ameristone, 966 F. Supp. 2d at 621 (dismissing SCUTPA claim where plaintiff “provides no specific facts” to support the ‘harm-to-public-interest’ prong). For all of these reasons, Plaintiff has not and cannot state a claim under SCUTPA, and the claim should be dismissed. x. Tennessee In Crabtree, Plaintiff asserts a claim for violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), Tenn Code. Ann §§ 47-18-101 et seq., alleging that Defendants failed to disclose Mr. Pacquiao’s injury prior to the Fight. Compl. ¶¶187- 90.37 This claim fails because: (1) Plaintiff cannot bring a class action under TCPA; (2) 37 All citations to the Complaint here are to the Crabtree Complaint. See Decl. of R. Bahe-Jachna, Ex. A, Row 12. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 54 of 65 Page ID #:584 40 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff fails to plead any affirmative misrepresentations; (3) the Mayweather Defendants did not have a duty to disclose. To state a TCPA claim, Plaintiff must allege: “‘(1) an ascertainable loss of money or property; (2) that such loss resulted from an unfair or deceptive act or practice; and (3) that the act or practice is declared unlawful under the TCPA.’“ Ward v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., No. 4:14-cv-30-SKL, 2015 WL 1193217, at *5 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 16, 2015) (citation omitted). Plaintiff Cannot Bring a Class Action under TCPA. Tennessee consumers are only allowed to bring an action “individually.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 47–18–109(a)(1). “Class actions are still prohibited because they are not actions brought ‘individually.’“ Walker v. Sunrise Pontiac-GMC Truck, Inc., 249 S.W.3d 301, 310 (Tenn. 2008). Federal courts in Tennessee recognize that “the class-action limitation reflects a policy that the proper remedy for a violation affecting a class of consumers is prosecution by the Attorney General or by the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance—not a private class action.” Bearden v. Honeywell Int’l Inc., No. 3:09-1035, 2010 WL 3239285, at *10 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 16, 2010). “Because the restriction is a part of Tennessee’s framework of substantive rights and remedies, Rule 23 does not apply.” Id. at *10. Thus, Plaintiff’s claim on behalf of a class is barred. Plaintiff Fails to Plead any Affirmative Misrepresentations. Although Plaintiff lists six separate provisions of the TCPA that “Defendants” allegedly violated,38 each provision requires some false affirmative representation.39 Plaintiff fails to allege any false affirmative representation by the Mayweather Defendants, and none of Plaintiff’s six TCPA provisions provide for misrepresentation by omission. 38 Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 47-18-104(b)(2); 104(b)(3); 104(b)(5); 104(b)(7); 104(b)(9); and 104(b)(21). 39 Each provision requires that the Mayweather Defendants were “misrepresenting” (104(b)(2) & (b)(3)); “representing” (104(b)(5) & (b)(7)); “advertising” (104(b)(9)); or “using statements or illustrations in an[] advertisement” (104(b)(21)). Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 55 of 65 Page ID #:585 41 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Mayweather Defendants did Not Have a Duty to Disclose. As noted above, Plaintiff does not point to any affirmative statements made by the Mayweather Defendants that could constitute misrepresentations. There is no claim that the Mayweather Defendants made an affirmative representation about Mr. Pacquiao’s health or lack of injury. Thus, it was not a violation of the TCPA for them to remain silent. Under Tennessee law, a duty to disclose arises in one of three ways: (1) “‘[w]here there is a previous definite fiduciary relation between the parties,”‘ (2) “‘[w]here it appears one or each of the parties to the contract expressly reposes a trust and confidence in the other,”‘ and (3) “‘[w]here the contract or transaction is intrinsically fiduciary and calls for perfect good faith.”‘ Shah v. Racetrac Petroleum Co., 338 F.3d 557, 571 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting Domestic Sewing Mach. Co. v. Jackson, 83 Tenn. 418, 425 (1885)). Plaintiff offers no such allegations, and, therefore, fails to adequately allege a duty under Tennessee law. For all of these reasons, Plaintiff has not and cannot state a claim under TCPA, and the claim should be dismissed. xi. Texas In Craig, Plaintiffs assert a claim for violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (“TDTPA”), Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.41 et seq., under subsections § 17.46(b)(9) and § 17.46(b)(24), alleging that Defendants failed to disclose Mr. Pacquiao’s shoulder injury before the Fight. Compl. ¶¶185-88.40 This claim fails because Plaintiffs have not and cannot show that the Mayweather Defendants engaged in a false, misleading, or deceptive act. Fowler v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 2 F. Supp. 3d 965, 973 (S.D. Tex. 2014) (dismissing § 17.46(b)(9) and (b)(24) claims for failure to state a claim where plaintiffs did not plead “factual content that would allow the court to draw a reasonable inference that Defendants are liable for the misconduct alleged”). Specifically, Plaintiffs here fail to allege that the Mayweather Defendants: (1) made a 40 All citations to the Complaint here are to the Craig Complaint. See Decl. of R. Bahe- Jachna, Ex. A, Row 13. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 56 of 65 Page ID #:586 42 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 misrepresentation, or (2) had prior knowledge of Mr. Pacquiao’s injury. To state a TDTPA claim, Plaintiffs must show that: “1) the plaintiff is a consumer, 2) the defendant has engaged in false, misleading, or deceptive acts, and 3) the acts were a producing cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.” Williams v. Heuser Chiropractic, No. 12- 02-00019-CV, 2004 WL 100462, at *7 (Tex. App. Jan. 21, 2004). Plaintiffs Fail to Allege a Misrepresentation. Plaintiffs’ (b)(9) claim is based on a misrepresentation due to “advertising goods or services with the intent not to sell as advertised.” Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.46(b)(9). This claim fails because Plaintiffs fail to allege a specific, affirmative misrepresentation by the Mayweather Defendants. Webb v. UnumProvident Corp., 507 F. Supp. 2d 668, 679 (W.D. Tex. 2005) (finding no reasonable basis of recovery where plaintiff did not identify the deceptive statement allegedly relied upon). Plaintiffs’ (b)(9) claim also requires proof of intent not to sell goods or services as advertised. Perez v. Hung Kien Luu, 244 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. App. 2007) (finding insufficient evidence for a § 17.46(b)(9) claim where there was no proof of intent not to sell good as advertised). This claim also fails because Plaintiffs do not plead any facts to support this necessary intent by the Mayweather Defendants. Plaintiffs Fail to Show the Mayweather Defendants had Access to Information About Mr. Pacquiao’s Injury. As discussed above, Plaintiffs’ allegations do not show that the Mayweather Defendants had access to information about Mr. Pacquiao’s medical injury prior to the Fight. See supra pp. 9-10. Plaintiffs’ (b)(24) claim is based on non- disclosure of information. Actionable conduct under a TDTPA non-disclosure claim requires evidence that a defendant: “(1) fail[ed] to disclose information concerning goods or services, (2) which was known at the time of the transaction, (3) [and] such failure was intended to induce the consumer into a transaction, (4) which the consumer would not have entered had the information been disclosed.” Webb, 507 F. Supp. at 680 (alterations in original) (quoting Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.46(b)(24)). “Nondisclosure without evidence that a defendant had knowledge of the undisclosed information and intentionally withheld the information is not actionable.” Williams, WL 100462, at *8 Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 57 of 65 Page ID #:587 43 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (affirming directed verdict where there was no evidence defendants had knowledge of undisclosed information). “There is also no duty to disclose if a defendant fails to disclose material facts it should have known.” Id. For this reason, Plaintiffs’ (b)(24) claim fails. Fowler, 2 F. Supp. 3d at 973. For all of these reasons, Plaintiffs have not and cannot state a claim under TDTPA, and the claim should be dismissed. xii. Plaintiffs’ Common Law Fraudulent Concealment Claim under Puerto Rican Law Fails. In Rodriguez, Plaintiffs assert a claim for fraudulent concealment under Puerto Rican common law, Compl. ¶¶179-94.41 This claim fails because Plaintiffs fail to show a duty to disclose. Although Plaintiffs assert that “Defendants had a duty to disclose material facts to the Puerto Rico Plaintiffs,” Compl. ¶186, Plaintiffs do not and cannot identify the source of this purported duty because it does not exist. Bonilla v. Volvo Car Corp. , 150 F.3d 62, 70 (1st Cir. 1998) (no general obligation of seller to tell buyer everything negative buyer might be interested in; caveat emptor remains the general rule). Plaintiffs here do not allege privity of contract with the Mayweather Defendants. Absent a contractual duty to disclose, a duty exists only when the law imposes an obligation. Muniz v. Nat’l Can Corp., 737 F.2d 145, 148 (1st Cir. 1984) (applying Puerto Rican law); Estremera v. Immobiliaria Rac Inc., 109 P.R. Dec. 852 (1980). “Obligations arising from law are not presumed.” 31 L.P.R.A. §2993. Additionally, Puerto Rico’s Civil Code provides that obligations arising from “acts or omissions, in which faults or negligence, not punished by law, occur, shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 393 of [Puerto Rico’s Civil Code].” 31 L.P.R.A. §2996.42 41 All Citations to the Complaint here are to the Rodriguez Complaint. See Decl. of R. Bahe-Jachna, Ex. A, Row 10. 42 The Puerto Rico Supreme Court has specifically held that actions sounding in tort are governed by civil law precepts. See Valle v. Am. Int’l Ins. Co., 108 D.P.R. 692, 696-97 (1979) rejecting application of common law principles to resolve civil law situations). Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 58 of 65 Page ID #:588 44 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 However, Chapter 393 does not contain any provision that would have required the Mayweather Defendants to disclose any information to Plaintiffs. Lacking any basis under Puerto Rican law, this claim should be dismissed. IV. PLAINTIFFS’ UNJUST ENRICHMENT CLAIMS FAIL. In attempting to set out a claim for unjust enrichment in 11 of these cases, Plaintiffs rely on the same “unfortunate event” allegations upon which their fraud claims are based. The result is no different - Plaintiffs’ claims for unjust enrichment fail in each jurisdiction: California, Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.43 Although the elements of an unjust enrichment claim vary from state to state, some elements are consistent: (1) the defendant received a benefit, (2) at the plaintiff’s expense, (3) under circumstances making it unjust for the defendant to retain the benefit without paying for it. Jurista v. Amerinox Processing, Inc., 492 B.R. 707, 753-54 (D.N.J. 2013) (New Jersey law).44 Common defenses defeat each of Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claims. A. Plaintiffs Fail to Plead with Specificity under Rule 9(b). Because Plaintiffs fail to plead the underlying fraud with the requisite specificity, see supra pp. 12-44, the unjust enrichment claims in all 11 Complaints also must be 43 See Decl. of R. Bahe-Jachna, Ex. A, Rows 2, 4-7, 9-15. 44 For the complete elements of unjust enrichment claims by state, see Compliance Services of Am., LLC v. Houser Holdings, LLC, 13-CV-01269-JST, 2013 WL 4169119, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013) (discussing elements of claim for money had and received) (California); Lieberman v. Emigrant Mortg. Co., 436 F. Supp. 2d 357, 366 (D. Conn. 2006) (Connecticut); Cleary v. Philip Morris Inc., 656 F.3d 511, 516 (7th Cir. 2011) (Illinois); Midfield Concession Enters. Inc. v. Areas USA, Inc., 130 F.Supp.3d 1122, 1149 (E.D. Mich. 2015) (Michigan); WMCV Phase 3, LLC v. Shushok & McCoy, Inc., 750 F. Supp. 2d 1180, 1196-97 (D. Nev. 2010) (Nevada); In re Covenant Partners, L.P., 531 B.R. 84, 99 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2015) (Pennsylvania); Montalvo v. LT’s Benjamin Records, Inc., 56 F. Supp. 3d 121, 136-37 (D.P.R. 2014) (Puerto Rico); Brooks v. GAF Materials Corp., 41 F. Supp. 3d 474, 485 (D.S.C. 2014) (South Carolina); Freeman Indus., LLC v. Eastman Chem. Co., 172 S.W.3d 512, 525 (Tenn. 2005) (Tennessee); and Mary E. Bivins Found. v. Highland Capital Mgmt. L.P., 451 S.W.3d 104, 111-12 (Tex. App. 2014) (Texas). Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 59 of 65 Page ID #:589 45 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 dismissed. B. Plaintiffs Fail to Plead any Act Making the Mayweather Defendants’ Retention of any Benefit Unjust.45 Most jurisdictions require the defendant to have acted in a way making the retention of the benefit unjust.46 Plaintiffs fail to plead this important element. Plaintiffs attempt to allege the Mayweather Defendants had knowledge of Mr. Pacquiao’s injury, but as discussed previously, see supra pp. 9-10, the Court cannot infer knowledge from these allegations. The broad allegation “Defendants actively promoted and advertised the Fight to the public…as a fair and honest sporting event between two healthy, fit, and uninjured participants at the top of their game,” Compl. ¶10,47 is insufficient to show the Mayweather Defendants’ retention of any benefit would be unjust. The Complaints lack factual allegations showing the Mayweather Defendants obtained a benefit “by fraud, duress, or the taking of an undue advantage.” Mary E. Bivins Found., 451 S.W.3d at 111. 45 This argument applies to the unjust enrichment claims in Connecticut, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. See Decl. of R. Bahe- Jachna, Ex. A, Rows 2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11-13. 46 Vertex, Inc. v. City of Waterbury, 278 Conn. 557, 573 (2006) (holding the test is “‘what…is just or unjust, equitable or inequitable, conscionable or unconscionable’“); Cleary, 656 F.3d at 516 (Illinois law requires allegations “‘that the defendant has unjustly retained a benefit to the plaintiff’s detriment, and that defendant’s retention of the benefit violates the fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.’“) (citation omitted); WMCV, 750 F.Supp.2d at 1196-97 (Nevada law requires “circumstances where it would be inequitable [for defendant] to retain the benefit without payment”); Jurista, 492 B.R. at 753-54 (New Jersey requires “circumstances that would make it unjust for the defendant to retain the benefit without paying for it”); Gabriel v. Giant Eagle, Inc., 124 F.Supp.3d 550, 568-69 (W.D. Pa. 2015) (“‘unjust’ element of an unjust enrichment claim is the most significant one under Pennsylvania law”); Brooks, 41 F.Supp.3d at 485 (unjust enrichment under South Carolina law requires “conditions that make it unjust for it to retain the benefit”); Freeman Indus., 172 S.W.3d at 525 (“most significant requirement of an unjust enrichment claim is that the benefit…be unjust”); Mary E. Bivins Found., 451 S.W.3d at 111 (“plaintiff must show that the defendant obtained a benefit from the plaintiff by fraud, duress, or the taking of an undue advantage”). 47 This allegation appears in paragraph 10 of each of these Complaints. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 60 of 65 Page ID #:590 46 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C. Unjust Enrichment is Not an Independent Cause of Action.48 In Illinois, New Jersey, and Texas, an unjust enrichment claim is not an independent cause of action. A claim for unjust enrichment that “rests on the same improper conduct alleged in another claim,…will stand or fall with the related claim.” Cleary, 656 F.3d at 517 (Illinois); R.M. Dudley Const. Co., Inc. v. Dawson, 258 S.W.3d 694, 703-04 (Tex. App. 2008) (Texas); Jurista, 492 B.R. at 754 (D.N.J. 2013) (New Jersey). As discussed throughout this Memorandum, the underlying claims in these three cases should be dismissed, resulting in the unjust enrichment claim also being dismissed. D. Unjust Enrichment is Not Available When There is an Adequate Remedy at Law.49 Under New Jersey and Texas law, unjust enrichment is not available when there is an adequate remedy available at law. Nat’l Amusements, Inc. v. New Jersey Tpk. Auth., 261 N.J. Super. 468, 478, aff’d, 275 N.J. Super. 134, 645 A.2d 1194 (App. Div. 1994) (New Jersey); R.M. Dudley Const., 258 S.W.3d at 704 (Texas).50 Under Puerto Rico law, “the doctrine [of unjust enrichment] applies only when there is no applicable statute.” Westernbank Puerto Rico v. Kachkar, CIV07- 1606ADC/BJM, 2009 WL 6337949, at *29 (D.P.R. Dec. 10, 2009) report and recommendation adopted, CIV07-1606 ADC, 2010 WL 1416521 (D.P.R. Mar. 31, 2010). The District Court of Puerto Rico has held allegations of fraud give rise to “a claim sounding in tort under art. 1802 of the P.R. Civil Code, Laws of P.R. Ann., tit. 31 § 5141 (1991).” Ocaso, S.A., Compañia De Seguros Y Reaseguros v. Puerto Rico Mar. Shipping 48 This argument applies to the unjust enrichment claims asserted under Illinois, New Jersey, and Texas law. See Decl. of R. Bahe-Jachna, Ex. A, Rows 4, 7 & 13. 49 This argument applies to the unjust enrichment claims asserted under New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and Texas law. See Decl. of R. Bahe-Jachna, Ex. A, Rows 7, 10, 13. 50 In the New Jersey lawsuit, see Decl. of R. Bahe-Jachna, Ex. A, Row 7, Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim is based on the same conduct as their claim based on the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. In the Texas lawsuit, see Decl. of R. Bahe-Jachna, Ex. A, Row13, the unjust enrichment claim is duplicative of the legal remedy Plaintiffs seek under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 61 of 65 Page ID #:591 47 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Auth., 915 F. Supp. 1244, 1263 (D.P.R. 1996). Because a statutory remedy is “applicable to the [] case, the doctrine of unjust enrichment is precluded.” Westernbank Puerto Rico, 2009 WL 6337949, at *29. E. California Requires Plaintiffs to Allege a Definite Sum in a Claim for Money Had and Received.51 Under California law, “[a] cause of action for money had and received is stated if it is alleged that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in a certain sum for money had and received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff.” Compliance Services of Am., LLC v. Houser Holdings, LLC, 13-cv-01269-JST, 2013 WL 4169119, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013) (citation omitted). Plaintiffs must be able to show “‘specific, identifiable sums’ of money that he has a legal claim over.” Fields v. Mobile Messengers Am., Inc., C 12-05160 WHA, 2013 WL 6774076, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2013) (citation omitted). Because Plaintiffs here fail to allege a specific amount owed, their unjust enrichment claims should be dismissed. See Tomek v. Apple, Inc., 2:11-cv-02700-MCE-DAD, 2012 WL 2857035, at *7 (E.D. Cal. July 11, 2012). Thus, for all of these reasons, each of the unjust enrichment claims fails and should be dismissed. V. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A CLAIM FOR CIVIL CONSPIRACY. Undeterred by a complete lack of facts to support a conspiracy theory, Plaintiffs nonetheless assert claims for civil conspiracy against the Mayweather Defendants in the Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, and South Carolina lawsuits.52 Once again, however, there is simply no actionable conduct to give rise to a cause of action for Plaintiffs, as disappointed sports fans, and each of these claims should be dismissed. A. Plaintiffs Fail to Plead Facts Supporting an Agreement. Plaintiffs must, but do not, plead an agreement between conspirators to do some 51 This argument applies to both the Mahoney and Jammers Complaints. See Decl. of R. Bahe-Jachna, Ex. A, Rows 1 & 14. 52 See Decl. of R. Bahe-Jachna, Ex. A, Rows 3, 5, 7, & 11. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 62 of 65 Page ID #:592 48 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 unlawful act or to injure the plaintiffs. See Pye v. Estate of Fox, 369 S.C. 555, 566-67, 633 S.E.2d 505, 511 (2006) (“The elements of a civil conspiracy in South Carolina are (1) the combination of two or more people, (2) for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff, (3) which causes special damages.”).53 Plaintiffs offer no facts to explain how, when, where, and who specifically entered into the alleged agreement. To the contrary, Plaintiffs allege only that “Defendants knowingly agreed with each other, business to business, and/or individual to individual, expressly or implicitly, to engage in the wrongful conduct alleged herein….” Compl. ¶214.54 This is classic speculation, and utterly lacking in any detail sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. In fact, other allegations refute the existence of a conspiracy to conceal details of Mr. Pacquiao’s injury - Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Mayweather learned of Mr. Pacquiao’s injury through a “mole,” Compl. ¶115, and that the Mayweather Defendants told the public Mr. Pacquiao was having a “rough camp.” Id. ¶71. Such claims do not support an allegation of conspiracy. In Twombly, the Supreme Court distinguished allegations that plausibly suggest conspiracy from those that are merely “consistent with conspiracy” but “stop short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” 550 U.S. at 554. Here, Plaintiffs’ allegations fall woefully short of that line as all of Plaintiffs’ allegations can easily be explained by rational independent action. B. Plaintiffs Fail to Plead with Specificity as Rule 9(b) Requires. Plaintiffs’ allegations lack the specificity required by Rule 9(b). As discussed above, Plaintiffs fail to specify the time, place, or manner of the allegedly conspiratorial 53 See also Raimi v. Furlong, 702 So.2d 1273, 1284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (Florida); Ahlers v. Schebil, 188 F.3d 365, 374 (6th Cir. 1999) (Michigan); Giercyk v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa, No. 13-6272, 2015 WL 7871165, at *8 (D.N.J. Dec. 4, 2015) (New Jersey). 54 All citations to the Complaint here are to the Brady Complaint. See Decl. of R. Bahe- Jachna, Ex. A, Row 3. See Decl. of R. Bahe-Jachna, Exhibit C, for the comparable allegation in the other three Complaints. (Docket Entry 154-5) Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 63 of 65 Page ID #:593 49 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 acts. See also supra pp. 10-12. C. Plaintiffs Fail to Plead a Viable Underlying Tort. A conspiracy claim also requires an actionable underlying tort. Because none of Plaintiffs’ other claims are viable, their conspiracy claims also must be dismissed. A civil conspiracy claim “may not exist in the air,…it is necessary to prove a separate, actionable, tort.” Early Detection Ctr., P.C., v. New York Life Ins. Co., 157 Mich. App. 618, 631 (1986); see also Sunoptic Techs., LLC v. Integra Luxtec, Inc., No. 3:08-CV- 878-J-16JRK, 2009 WL 722320, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 18, 2009); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Roussel Corp., 23 F. Supp. 2d 460, 497 (D.N.J. 1998) (same). These conspiracy claims are premised on Plaintiffs’ claims under the respective state’s unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes, and those claims all fail for the reasons set forth above, see supra pp. 12-44. Thus, Plaintiffs’ conspiracy claims also fail. D. The South Carolina Conspiracy Claim Fails for Additional Reasons. Plaintiff’s South Carolina claim for civil conspiracy fails for two additional reasons. First, Plaintiff must, but does not, “plead additional acts in furtherance of the conspiracy separate and independent from other wrongful acts alleged in the complaint, and the failure to properly plead such acts will merit the dismissal of the claim.” Hackworth v. Greywood at Hammett, LLC, 385 S.C. 110, 115-16 (Ct. App. 2009). Second, the damages alleged in a conspiracy claim “must go beyond the damages alleged in other causes of action.” Hackworth, 385 S.C. at 115. If, as occurs here, Plaintiff merely repeats the damages from another claim and does not specifically allege special damages for the civil conspiracy claim, it should be dismissed. Id. at 117; Hotel and Motel Holdings, LLC v. BJC Enters., LLC, 414 S.C. 635, 650-51 (Ct. App. 2015) (dismissing conspiracy claim on same basis). For these additional reasons, Plaintiff’s South Carolina conspiracy claim should be dismissed. E. The Florida, Michigan, and New Jersey Conspiracy Claims Fail for Additional Reasons. Under Florida, Michigan, and New Jersey law, Plaintiffs must, but do not, allege Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 64 of 65 Page ID #:594 50 Mayweather Defs.' Mem. of P&A ISO Master Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss all Complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 an overt act by the Mayweather Defendants in furtherance of a conspiracy. Raimi, 702 So.2d at 1284 (Florida); Roche v. Blair, 305 Mich. 608, 614 (Mich. 1943) (Michigan); Glidden Co. v. Jandernoa, 5 F.Supp.2d 541, 555 (W.D. Mich. 1998); Zodda v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., No.13-7738 (FSH), 2014 WL 1577694, at *5 (D.N.J. Apr. 21, 2014) (New Jersey). Plaintiffs do not allege a misstatement of fact by the Mayweather Defendants after they allegedly learned of Mr. Pacquiao’s injury. Instead, Plaintiffs allege the Mayweather Defendants “failed to disclose” Mr. Pacquiao’s injury to the public and continued to promote the Fight. Compl. ¶116. However, failing to disclose a fact there is no duty to disclose does not constitute the “overt act” required for a civil conspiracy claim. See In re Palm Beach Fin. Partners, L.P., 517 B.R. 310, 345 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2013); Earp v. Detroit, 16 Mich. App. 271, 275 (1969) (no civil action for conspiracy alone, must allege a separate actionable tort) (citation omitted); M & D, Inc. v. McConkey, 231 Mich. App. 22, 29 (1998) (“silence cannot constitute actionable fraud unless it occurred…where there was a legal duty of disclosure”). CONCLUSION It is time for reality to set in, and for Plaintiffs to accept that “[e]very unfortunate event does not give rise to a lawsuit.” For the foregoing reasons, and for such other and further reasons as may appear to the Court at a hearing or otherwise in this matter, the Mayweather Defendants respectfully request that this Court dismiss all claims asserted against them in all currently pending Complaints. Dated: September 6, 2016 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP By: By: RUTH A. BAHE-JACHNA MARK G. TRATOS Attorneys for Defendants Floyd Mayweather and Mayweather Promotions LLC /s/ Ruth A. Bahe-Jachna Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 65 of 65 Page ID #:595 DECLARATION OF RUTH A. BAHE-JACHNA ISO MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ MASTER RULE 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MARK G. TRATOS tratosm@gtlaw.com GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 3773 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 400 N. Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 RUTH A. BAHE-JACHNA baher@gtlaw.com GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Telephone: (312) 456-8421 Facsimile: (312) 456-8435 Attorneys for Defendants Floyd Mayweather and Mayweather Promotions LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION IN RE: PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING MATCH PAY-PER-VIEW LITIGATION This document relates to: ALL CASES MDL No. 2:15-ml-02639-RGK (PLAx) [MDL No. 2639] DECLARATION OF RUTH A. BAHE- JACHNA IN SUPPORT OF MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ MASTER RULE 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS [Filed concurrently with Notice of Mayweather Defendants’ Rule 12(B)(6) Motion to Dismiss; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; and [Proposed] Order] Courtroom: 850 Judge: Hon. R. Gary Klausner Hearing Date: None Scheduled Hearing Time: None Scheduled Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-2 Filed 09/07/16 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:596 1 DECLARATION OF RUTH A. BAHE-JACHNA ISO MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’MASTER RULE 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF RUTH A. BAHE-JACHNA I, Ruth A. Bahe-Jachna, declare: 1. I am a shareholder with the law firm of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, attorneys of record for Defendants Floyd Mayweather and Mayweather Promotions LLC (the “Mayweather Defendants”). I am an attorney licensed and admitted to practice in the State of Illinois and also am admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, including its federal trial bar. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration and, if called and sworn as a witness, I could and would testify competently with respect thereto. I submit this Declaration in support of the Mayweather Defendants’ Rule 12(B)(6) Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Motion to Dismiss. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of a chart compiling all of the Complaints currently pending in MDL 2639. The compilation also identifies each count that the Mayweather Defendants are seeking to dismiss, as well as the pages in their Memorandum of Points and Authorities where argument as to each count is set out. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of a chart listing paragraph allegations contained in Mahoney v. Emmanuel Pacquiao, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-3376-RGK (PLAx), [Lead (California) Case] Complaint, and referenced in the Mayweather Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities. The chart also notes where each of these allegations is found in each of the 14 other Complaints that are the subject of this Motion to Dismiss. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of a chart listing paragraph allegations contained in Brady v. Emmanuel Pacquiao, et al., Case No. 2:15- cv-7093-RGK (PLAx), [Lead (Florida) Case] Complaint, and referenced in the Mayweather Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities. The chart also notes where each of these allegations is found in each of three other Complaints that are the subject of this Motion to Dismiss. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-2 Filed 09/07/16 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:597 2 DECLARATION OF RUTH A. BAHE-JACHNA ISO MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’MASTER RULE 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. On May 26, 2016, the parties met and conferred, telephonically, regarding the Mayweather Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. I, along with my colleague Mark Tratos, appeared telephonically for the Mayweather Defendants. Hart Robinovitch, Marc Goldich, and Kevin Roddy appeared, telephonically, for the Plaintiffs. After that date, and up until the filing of the June 13, 2016, Status Conference Report, the parties continued to communicate concerning the Defendants’ anticipated Motions to Dismiss. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Chicago, Illinois, on September 6, 2016. By: RUTH A. BAHE-JACHNA LV 420763434v3 /s/ Ruth A. Bahe-Jachna Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-2 Filed 09/07/16 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:598 EXHIBIT A Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-3 Filed 09/07/16 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:599 Exhibit A 1 Row Complaint Putative Class Claims Against Mayweather Defendants MTD Argument 1 California Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint Mahoney v. Pacquiao, et al. , No. 2:15-cv-3376-RGK (PLAx) (C.D. Cal.) California PPV Consumers I. Cal. UCL (Omission) III. CLRA (Omission) IV. CLRA (Misrepresentation) V. Unjust Enrichment pp. 19-22 pp. 22-23 p. 23 pp. 44, 47 2 Connecticut Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint Alessi v. Top Rank, Inc., et al. , No. 2:15-cv-06585-RGK (PLAx) (D. Conn.) Connecticut PPV Consumers I. CUTPA (Omission) II. Unjust Enrichment pp. 23-26 pp. 44-45 3 Florida Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint Brady v. Emmanuel Pacquiao, et al. , No. 2:15-cv-07093-RGK (PLAx) (S.D. Fla.) Florida PPV Consumers I. FDUTPA (Omission) III. Civil Conspiracy pp. 26-28 pp. 47-50 4 Illinois Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint Gomez, et al. v. Top Rank, Inc., et al. , No. 2:15-cv-06227-RGK (PLAx) (N.D. Ill.) Illinois PPV Consumers I. ICFA II. Unjust Enrichment pp. 28-29 pp. 44-46 Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-3 Filed 09/07/16 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:600 Exhibit A 2 Row Complaint Putative Class Claims Against Mayweather Defendants MTD Argument 5 Michigan Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint Bradley v. Emmanuel Pacquiao, et al. , No. 2:15-cv-06591-RGK (PLAx) (E.D. Mich.) Michigan PPV Consumers I. MCPA (Omission) III. Civil Conspiracy IV. Unjust Enrichment pp. 30-31 pp. 47-50 p. 44 6 Nevada Plaintiff's Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint Neidl v. Top Rank, Inc., et al. , No. 2:15-cv-06230-RGK (PLAx) (D. Nev.) Nevada PPV Consumers I. NDTPA (Omission) III. Unjust Enrichment pp. 31-33 pp. 44-45 7 New Jersey Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint Bobadilla v. Top Rank, Inc., et al. , No. 2:15-cv-06231-RGK (PLAx) (D.N.J.) New Jersey PPV Consumers I. NJCFA (Omission) III. Civil Conspiracy IV. Unjust Enrichment pp. 33-35 pp. 47-50 pp. 44-47 8 New York Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint Barrios, et al. v. Emmanuel Pacquiao, et al. , No. 2:15-cv-06233-RGK (PLAx) (E.D.N.Y.) New York PPV Consumers I. N.Y. GBL §349 (Omission) pp. 35-37 Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-3 Filed 09/07/16 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:601 Exhibit A 3 Row Complaint Putative Class Claims Against Mayweather Defendants MTD Argument 9 Pennsylvania Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint Gordon, et al. v. Showtime Networks, Inc., et al. , No. 2:15-cv-06662-RGK (PLAx) (E.D. Pa.) Pennsylvania PPV Consumers I. Unjust Enrichment pp. 44-45 10 Puerto Rico Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint Rodriguez, et al. v. Emmanuel Pacquiao, et al. , No. 2:15-cv-06665-RGK (PLAx) (D.P.R.) Puerto Rico PPV Consumers I. Fraudulent Concealment (Omission) II. Unjust Enrichment pp. 43-44 pp. 44, 46-47 11 South Carolina Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint Thrailkill v. Top Rank, Inc., et al. , No. 2:15-cv-6701-RGK (PLAx) (D.S.C.) South Carolina PPV Consumers I. SCUTPA (Omission) II. Civil Conspiracy III. Unjust Enrichment pp. 37-39 pp. 47-49 pp. 44-45 12 Tennessee Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint Crabtree v. Pacquiao, et al. , No. 2:15-cv-06707-RGK (PLAx) (M. D. Tenn.) Tennessee PPV Consumers I. TCPA (Omission) II. Unjust Enrichment pp. 39-41 pp. 44-45 Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-3 Filed 09/07/16 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:602 Exhibit A 4 Row Complaint Putative Class Claims Against Mayweather Defendants MTD Argument 13 Texas Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint Craig, et al. v. Emmanuel Pacquiao, et al. , No. 2:15-cv-06234-RGK (PLAx) (E.D. Tex.) Texas PPV Consumers I. TDTPA (Omission) II. Unjust Enrichment pp. 41-43 pp. 44-47 14 Commercial Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint Jammers, Inc. v. Top Rank, Inc., et al. , No. 2:15-cv-03496-RGK (PLAx) (C.D. Cal.) PPV Commercial Entities Nationwide Sub-classes: California New York I. Lanham Act IV. Unjust Enrichment II. Cal. UCL (Omission) III. N.Y. GBL § 349 (Omission) pp. 15-18 pp. 44, 47 pp. 19-22 pp. 35-37 15 Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint on Behalf of Live Attendees DeHart, et al. v. Top Rank, Inc., et al. , No. 2:15-cv-06561-RGK (PLAx) (D. Nev.) Live Attendees I. Nev. CFA-DTPA (Omission) II. Unjust Enrichment pp. 31-33 p. 44 Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-3 Filed 09/07/16 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:603 EXHIBIT B Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-4 Filed 09/07/16 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:604 Exhibit B (Part 1) Mahoney (CA) Alessi (CT) Brady (FL) Gomez (IL) Bradley (MI) Neidl (NV) Bobadilla (NJ) Barrios (NY) ¶2 ¶2 ¶2 ¶2 ¶2 ¶2 ¶2 ¶2 ¶3 ¶3 ¶3 ¶3 ¶3 ¶3 ¶3 ¶3 ¶4 ¶4 ¶4 ¶4 ¶4 ¶4 ¶4 ¶4 ¶6 ¶6 ¶6 ¶6 ¶6 ¶6 ¶6 ¶6 ¶7 ¶7 ¶7 ¶7 ¶7 ¶7 ¶7 ¶7 ¶10 ¶10 ¶10 ¶10 ¶10 ¶10 ¶10 ¶10 ¶11 ¶11 ¶11 ¶11 ¶11 ¶11 ¶11 ¶11 ¶12 ¶12 ¶12 ¶12 ¶12 ¶12 ¶12 ¶12 ¶17 ¶17 ¶17 ¶17 ¶17 ¶17 ¶17 ¶17 ¶20 ¶20 ¶20 ¶20 ¶20 ¶20 ¶20 ¶20 ¶21 ¶21 ¶21 ¶21 ¶21 ¶21 ¶21 ¶21 ¶32 ¶27 ¶30 ¶29 ¶27 ¶27 ¶29 ¶31 ¶33 ¶28 ¶31 ¶30 ¶28 ¶28 ¶30 ¶32 ¶35 ¶30 ¶33 ¶32 ¶30 ¶30 ¶32 ¶34 ¶40 ¶35 ¶38 ¶37 ¶35 ¶35 ¶37 ¶39 ¶41 ¶36 ¶39 ¶38 ¶36 ¶36 ¶38 ¶40 ¶47 ¶42 ¶45 ¶44 ¶42 ¶42 ¶44 ¶46 Corresponding Allegations Across All Complaints 1 Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-4 Filed 09/07/16 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:605 Exhibit B (Part 1) Mahoney (CA) Alessi (CT) Brady (FL) Gomez (IL) Bradley (MI) Neidl (NV) Bobadilla (NJ) Barrios (NY) Corresponding Allegations Across All Complaints ¶59 ¶54 ¶57 ¶56 ¶54 ¶54 ¶56 ¶58 ¶68 ¶63 ¶66 ¶65 ¶63 ¶63 ¶65 ¶67 ¶70 ¶65 ¶68 ¶67 ¶65 ¶65 ¶67 ¶69 ¶71 ¶66 ¶69 ¶68 ¶66 ¶66 ¶68 ¶70 ¶73 ¶68 ¶71 ¶70 ¶68 ¶68 ¶70 ¶72 ¶75 ¶70 ¶73 ¶72 ¶70 ¶70 ¶72 ¶74 ¶76 ¶71 ¶74 ¶73 ¶71 ¶71 ¶73 ¶75 ¶108 ¶103 ¶106 ¶105 ¶103 ¶103 ¶105 ¶107 ¶109 ¶104 ¶107 ¶106 ¶104 ¶104 ¶106 ¶108 ¶110 ¶105 ¶108 ¶107 ¶105 ¶105 ¶107 ¶109 ¶111 ¶106 ¶109 ¶108 ¶106 ¶106 ¶108 ¶110 ¶112 ¶107 ¶110 ¶109 ¶107 ¶107 ¶109 ¶111 ¶113 ¶108 ¶111 ¶110 ¶108 ¶108 ¶110 ¶112 ¶114 ¶109 ¶112 ¶111 ¶109 ¶109 ¶111 ¶113 ¶115 ¶110 ¶113 ¶112 ¶110 ¶110 ¶112 ¶114 ¶116 ¶111 ¶114 ¶113 ¶111 ¶111 ¶113 ¶115 ¶117 ¶112 ¶115 ¶114 ¶112 ¶112 ¶114 ¶116 2 Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-4 Filed 09/07/16 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:606 Exhibit B (Part 1) Mahoney (CA) Alessi (CT) Brady (FL) Gomez (IL) Bradley (MI) Neidl (NV) Bobadilla (NJ) Barrios (NY) Corresponding Allegations Across All Complaints ¶118 ¶113 ¶116 ¶115 ¶113 ¶113 ¶115 ¶117 ¶145 ¶140 ¶143 ¶142 ¶140 ¶140 ¶142 ¶144 ¶149 ¶144 ¶147 ¶146 ¶144 ¶144 ¶146 ¶148 ¶150 ¶145 ¶148 ¶147 ¶145 ¶145 ¶147 ¶149 ¶151 ¶146 ¶149 ¶148 ¶146 ¶146 ¶148 ¶150 ¶152 ¶147 ¶150 ¶149 ¶147 ¶147 ¶149 ¶151 ¶153 ¶148 ¶151 ¶150 ¶148 ¶148 ¶150 ¶152 ¶154 ¶149 ¶152 ¶151 ¶149 ¶149 ¶151 ¶153 ¶155 ¶150 ¶153 ¶152 ¶150 ¶150 ¶152 ¶154 ¶156 ¶151 ¶154 ¶153 ¶151 ¶151 ¶153 ¶155 ¶157 ¶152 ¶155 ¶154 ¶152 ¶152 ¶154 ¶156 ¶159 ¶154 ¶157 ¶156 ¶154 ¶154 ¶156 ¶158 ¶160 ¶155 ¶158 ¶157 ¶155 ¶155 ¶157 ¶159 ¶181 ¶176 ¶179 ¶178 ¶176 ¶176 ¶178 ¶180 ¶182 ¶177 ¶180 ¶179 ¶177 ¶177 ¶179 ¶181 3 Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-4 Filed 09/07/16 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:607 Exhibit B (Part 2) Mahoney (CA) Gordon (PA ) Rodriguez (PR) Thrailkill (SC) Crabtree (TN) Craig (TX) Jammers (Commercial) DeHart (Live) ¶2 ¶2 ¶2 ¶2 ¶2 ¶2 ¶2 ¶2 ¶3 ¶3 ¶3 ¶3 ¶3 ¶3 ¶3 ¶3 ¶4 ¶4 ¶4 ¶4 ¶4 ¶4 ¶4 ¶4 ¶6 ¶6 ¶6 ¶6 ¶6 ¶6 ¶6 ¶6 ¶7 ¶7 ¶7 ¶7 ¶7 ¶7 ¶7 ¶7 ¶10 ¶10 ¶10 ¶10 ¶10 ¶10 ¶10 ¶10 ¶11 ¶11 ¶11 ¶11 ¶11 ¶11 ¶11 ¶11 ¶12 ¶12 ¶12 ¶12 ¶12 ¶12 ¶12 ¶12 ¶17 ¶17 ¶17 ¶17 ¶17 ¶17 ¶17 ¶17 ¶20 ¶20 ¶20 ¶20 ¶20 ¶20 ¶20 ¶20 ¶21 ¶21 ¶21 ¶21 ¶21 ¶21 ¶21 ¶23 ¶32 ¶28 ¶28 ¶27 ¶27 ¶27 ¶27 ¶29 ¶33 ¶29 ¶29 ¶28 ¶28 ¶28 ¶28 ¶30 ¶35 ¶31 ¶31 ¶30 ¶30 ¶30 ¶31 ¶32 ¶40 ¶36 ¶36 ¶35 ¶35 ¶35 ¶36 ¶37 ¶41 ¶37 ¶37 ¶36 ¶36 ¶36 ¶37 ¶38 ¶47 ¶43 ¶43 ¶42 ¶42 ¶42 ¶44 ¶43 Corresponding Allegations Across All Complaints 4 Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-4 Filed 09/07/16 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:608 Exhibit B (Part 2) Mahoney (CA) Gordon (PA ) Rodriguez (PR) Thrailkill (SC) Crabtree (TN) Craig (TX) Jammers (Commercial) DeHart (Live) Corresponding Allegations Across All Complaints ¶59 ¶55 ¶55 ¶54 ¶54 ¶54 ¶56 ¶56 ¶68 ¶64 ¶64 ¶63 ¶63 ¶63 ¶65 ¶65 ¶70 ¶66 ¶66 ¶65 ¶65 ¶65 ¶67 ¶67 ¶71 ¶67 ¶67 ¶66 ¶66 ¶66 ¶68 ¶68 ¶73 ¶69 ¶69 ¶68 ¶68 ¶68 ¶70 ¶71 ¶75 ¶71 ¶71 ¶70 ¶70 ¶70 ¶72 ¶73 ¶76 ¶72 ¶72 ¶71 ¶71 ¶71 ¶73 ¶74 ¶108 ¶104 ¶104 ¶103 ¶103 ¶102 ¶105 ¶106 ¶109 ¶105 ¶105 ¶104 ¶104 ¶103 ¶106 ¶107 ¶110 ¶106 ¶106 ¶105 ¶105 ¶104 ¶107 ¶108 ¶111 ¶107 ¶107 ¶106 ¶106 ¶105 ¶108 ¶109 ¶112 ¶108 ¶108 ¶107 ¶107 ¶106 ¶109 ¶110 ¶113 ¶109 ¶109 ¶108 ¶108 ¶107 ¶110 ¶111 ¶114 ¶110 ¶110 ¶109 ¶109 ¶108 ¶111 ¶112 ¶115 ¶111 ¶111 ¶110 ¶110 ¶109 ¶112 ¶113 ¶116 ¶112 ¶112 ¶111 ¶111 ¶110 ¶113 ¶114 ¶117 ¶113 ¶113 ¶112 ¶112 ¶111 ¶114 ¶115 5 Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-4 Filed 09/07/16 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:609 Exhibit B (Part 2) Mahoney (CA) Gordon (PA ) Rodriguez (PR) Thrailkill (SC) Crabtree (TN) Craig (TX) Jammers (Commercial) DeHart (Live) Corresponding Allegations Across All Complaints ¶118 ¶114 ¶114 ¶113 ¶113 ¶112 ¶115 ¶116 ¶145 ¶141 ¶141 ¶140 ¶140 ¶139 ¶142 ¶143 ¶149 ¶145 ¶145 ¶144 ¶144 ¶143 ¶146 ¶147 ¶150 ¶146 ¶146 ¶145 ¶145 ¶144 ¶147 ¶148 ¶151 ¶147 ¶147 ¶146 ¶146 ¶145 ¶148 ¶149 ¶152 ¶148 ¶148 ¶147 ¶147 ¶146 ¶149 N/A ¶153 ¶149 ¶149 ¶148 ¶148 ¶147 ¶150 N/A ¶154 ¶150 ¶150 ¶149 ¶149 ¶148 ¶151 N/A ¶155 ¶151 ¶151 ¶150 ¶150 ¶149 ¶152 N/A ¶156 ¶152 ¶152 ¶151 ¶151 ¶150 ¶153 N/A ¶157 ¶153 ¶153 ¶152 ¶152 ¶151 ¶154 ¶153 ¶159 ¶155 ¶155 ¶154 ¶154 ¶153 ¶156 N/A ¶160 ¶156 ¶156 ¶155 ¶155 ¶154 ¶157 ¶154 ¶181 ¶177 ¶177 ¶176 ¶176 ¶175 ¶178 ¶176 ¶182 ¶178 ¶178 ¶177 ¶177 ¶176 ¶179 ¶177 6 Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-4 Filed 09/07/16 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:610 EXHIBIT C Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-5 Filed 09/07/16 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:611 Exhibit C 1 Brady (Florida) Bradley (Michigan) Bobadilla (New Jersey) Thrailkill (South Carolina) ¶71 ¶68 ¶70 ¶68 ¶115 ¶112 ¶114 ¶112 ¶116 ¶113 ¶115 ¶113 ¶214 ¶216 ¶218 ¶204 Corresponding Allegations Across Complaints Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-5 Filed 09/07/16 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:612 MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MARK G. TRATOS tratosm@gtlaw.com GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 3773 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 400 N. Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 RUTH A. BAHE-JACHNA baher@gtlaw.com GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Telephone: (312) 456-8421 Facsimile: (312) 456-8435 Attorneys for Defendants Floyd Mayweather and Mayweather Promotions LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION IN RE: PACQUIAO-MAYWEATHER BOXING MATCH PAY-PER-VIEW LITIGATION This document relates to: ALL CASES MDL No. 2:15-ml-02639-RGK (PLAx) [MDL No. 2639] [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS [Filed concurrently with Notice of Motion; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; and Declaration of Ruth A. Bahe-Jachna] Courtroom: 850 Judge: Hon. R. Gary Klausner Hearing Date: None scheduled Hearing Time: None scheduled Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-6 Filed 09/07/16 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:613 1 MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER Before the Court is the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(B)(6) Motion to Dismiss (1) Mahoney v. Pacquiao, et al. [California]; (2) Alessi v. Top Rank, Inc., et al. [Connecticut]; (3) Brady v. Emmanuel Pacquiao, et al. [Florida]; (4) Gomez, et al. v. Top Rank, Inc., et al. [Illinois]; (5) Bradley v. Emmanuel Pacquiao, et al. [Michigan]; (6) Neidl v. Top Rank, Inc., et al. [Nevada]; (7) Bobadilla v. Top Rank, Inc., et al. [New Jersey]; (8) Barrios, et al. v. Emmanuel Pacquiao, et al. [New York]; (9) Gordon, et al. v. Showtime Networks, Inc., et al. [Pennsylvania]; (10) Rodriguez, et al. v. Emmanuel Pacquiao, et al. [Puerto Rico]; (11) Thrailkill v. Top Rank, Inc., et al. [South Carolina]; (12) Crabtree v. Pacquiao, et al. [Tennessee]; (13) Craig, et al. v. Emmanuel Pacquiao, et al. [Texas]; (14) Jammers, Inc. v. Top Rank, Inc., et al. [Commercial Plaintiffs]; and (15) DeHart, et al. v. Top Rank, Inc., et al. [Live Attendees] (collectively “Plaintiffs’ Complaints”) brought by Defendants Floyd Mayweather and Mayweather Promotions LLC (collectively, the “Mayweather Defendants”). Specifically, the Mayweather Defendants moved to dismiss the following Causes of Action contained with Plaintiffs’ Complaints: Complaint Putative Class Claims Against Mayweather Defendants 1 California Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint Mahoney v. Pacquiao, et al., No. 2:15-cv-3376-RGK (PLAx) (C.D. Cal.) California PPV Consumers I. Cal. UCL (Omission) III. CLRA (Omission) IV. CLRA (Misrepresentation) V. Unjust Enrichment 2 Connecticut Plaintiff’s Amended Class Action Complaint Alessi v. Top Rank, Inc., et al. , No. 2:15-cv-06585-RGK (PLAx) (D. Conn.) Connecticut PPV Consumers I. CUTPA (Omission) II. Unjust Enrichment Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-6 Filed 09/07/16 Page 2 of 12 Page ID #:614 2 MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Florida Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint Brady v. Emmanuel Pacquiao, et al., No. 2:15-cv-07093-RGK (PLAx) (S.D. Fla.) Florida PPV Consumers I. FDUTPA (Omission) III. Civil Conspiracy 4 Illinois Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint Gomez, et al. v. Top Rank, Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-06227-RGK (PLAx) (N.D. Ill.) Illinois PPV Consumers I. ICFA II. Unjust Enrichment 5 Michigan Plaintiff’s Amended Class Action Complaint Bradley v. Emmanuel Pacquiao, et al. , No. 2:15-cv-06591-RGK (PLAx) (E.D. Mich.) Michigan PPV Consumers I. MCPA (Omission) III. Civil Conspiracy IV. Unjust Enrichment 6 Nevada Plaintiff’s Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint Neidl v. Top Rank, Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-06230-RGK (PLAx) (D. Nev.) Nevada PPV Consumers I. NDTPA (Omission) III. Unjust Enrichment 7 New Jersey Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint Bobadilla v. Top Rank, Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-06231-RGK (PLAx) (D.N.J.) New Jersey PPV Consumers I. NJCFA (Omission) III. Civil Conspiracy IV. Unjust Enrichment 8 New York Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint Barrios, et al. v. Emmanuel Pacquiao, et al., No. 2:15-cv- 06233-RGK (PLAx) (E.D.N.Y.) New York PPV Consumers I. N.Y. GBL §349 (Omission) Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-6 Filed 09/07/16 Page 3 of 12 Page ID #:615 3 MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 Pennsylvania Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint Gordon, et al. v. Showtime Networks, Inc., et al. , No. 2:15-cv-06662-RGK (PLAx) (E.D. Pa.) Pennsylvania PPV Consumers I. Unjust Enrichment 10 Puerto Rico Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint Rodriguez, et al. v. Emmanuel Pacquiao, et al., No. 2:15-cv- 06665-RGK (PLAx) (D.P.R.) Puerto Rico PPV Consumers I. Fraudulent Concealment (Omission) II. Unjust Enrichment 11 South Carolina Plaintiff’s Amended Class Action Complaint Thrailkill v. Top Rank, Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-6701-RGK (PLAx) (D.S.C.) South Carolina PPV Consumers I. SCUTPA (Omission) II. Civil Conspiracy III. Unjust Enrichment 12 Tennessee Plaintiff’s Amended Class Action Complaint Crabtree v. Pacquiao, et al., No. 2:15-cv-06707-RGK (PLAx) (M. D. Tenn.) Tennessee PPV Consumers I. TCPA (Omission) II. Unjust Enrichment 13 Texas Plaintiffs’ Amended Class Action Complaint Craig, et al. v. Emmanuel Pacquiao, et al., No. 2:15-cv- 06234-RGK (PLAx) (E.D. Tex.) Texas PPV Consumers I. TDTPA (Omission) II. Unjust Enrichment Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-6 Filed 09/07/16 Page 4 of 12 Page ID #:616 4 MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14 Commercial Plaintiffs’ Amended Class Action Complaint Jammers, Inc. v. Top Rank, Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv- 03496-RGK (PLAx) (C.D. Cal.) PPV Commercial Entities Nationwide Sub-classes : California New York I. Lanham Act IV. Unjust Enrichment II. Cal. UCL (Omission) III. N.Y. GBL § 349 (Omission) 15 Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Class Action Complaint on Behalf of Live Attendees DeHart, et al. v. Top Rank, Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv- 06561-RGK (PLAx) (D. Nev.) Live Attendees I. Nev. CFA-DTPA (Omission) II. Unjust Enrichment The Court, having considered all of the briefing and argument on the matter, and for GOOD CAUSE shown, GRANTS the Mayweather Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, in its entirety. Specifically, Plaintiffs’ Complaints are dismissed on the following grounds: (1) Each of Plaintiffs’ Complaints as a whole are dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), because each of Plaintiffs’ purported claims for relief are comprised of conclusory allegations and unsupported inferences and thus fail to allege the required particularity of the elements needed to state a claim. (McBride v. Fannie Mae, No. 2:14-CV-0776-JAM- CMK, 2016 WL 3019308, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 26, 2016)). (2) Each of Plaintiffs’ Complaints as a whole are dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), because Plaintiffs have not pleaded facts with specificity to meet Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading requirements for fraud- based claims. (Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 2009)). (3) Each of Plaintiffs’ Complaints as a whole are dismissed because each of Plaintiffs’ purported claims for relief fail because the law of each state does Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-6 Filed 09/07/16 Page 5 of 12 Page ID #:617 5 MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 not provide a remedy for disgruntled or disappointed sports fans and Plaintiffs allege no cognizable injury to a legally protected right or interest. (Bowers v. Fed’n Internationale de l’Automobile, 461 F. Supp. 2d 855, 859 (S.D. Ind. 2006), aff’d, 489 F.3d 316 (7th Cir. 2007)). (4) Each of Plaintiffs’ Complaints and Plaintiffs’ fraud-based claims contained therein fail because Plaintiffs rely on non-actionable puffery and no duty to disclose exists. (Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir.1997)). (5) In addition to the proceeding reasons, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under any state’s consumer fraud statutes for the following reasons: a. California – Mahoney and Jammers Complaints: (1) Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; and (2) Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq. Plaintiffs’ claims under the UCL fail because: (1) Plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to show that the Mayweather Defendants’ conduct violated any of the statutes or regulations that form the basis of Plaintiffs’ claims and Plaintiffs’ other causes of action fail and cannot support a UCL claim for “unlawful” practices (Searle v. Wyndham Int’l, Inc., 102 Cal. App. 4th 1327, 1333-34 (2002)); (2) Plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to show that the Mayweather Defendants’ conduct violated an constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provisions that form the basis of Plaintiffs’ claims and cannot support a UCL claim for “unfair” practices (Berryman v. Merit Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 152 Cal. App. 4th 1544, 1555 (2007)); (3) Plaintiffs fail to allege a duty to disclose necessary to support their UCL claim (Buller v. Sutter Health, 160 Cal. App. 4th 981, 986 (2008)); (4) Plaintiffs fail to allege causation as required under the UCL and FAL (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§17204 and 17535; Wilens v. TD Waterhouse Group, Inc., 120 Cal. App. 4th 746, 754 (2003)); (5) Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-6 Filed 09/07/16 Page 6 of 12 Page ID #:618 6 MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs fail to allege that the Mayweather Defendants’ actions were likely to deceive members of the public and thus cannot state a claim under the UCL or FAL (Chip-Mender, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., No. C 05-3465 PJH, 2006 WL 13058, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2006)); (6) The UCL and FAL only provide for equitable relief (Rhynes v. Stryker Corp., No. 10-5619 SC, 2011 WL 2149095); and (7) Plaintiffs cannot request injunctive relief where they do not and cannot allege a likelihood of future injury (City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111 (1983)). Plaintiffs’ claim under the CLRA fails because: (1) Plaintiffs fail to allege causation (Wilens, 120 Cal. App. 4th at 754); (2) Plaintiffs cannot request injunctive relief where they do not and cannot allege a likelihood of future injury (Burns v. Tristar Prods., Inc., No. 14-cv-749-BAS-DHB, 2014 WL 3728115, at *3 (S.D. Cal. July 25, 2014)); (3) the Mahoney Plaintiffs failed to file the required affidavit in support of their CLRA claim (Cal. Civ. Code § 1780(d)); (4) a license to view a PPV event is not a good or service under the CLRA (Hall v. Sea World Entm’t, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-660-CAB-RBB, 2015 WL 9659911, at *15 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2015)); (5) the Mayweather Defendants did not have a duty to disclose under the CLRA (Tait v. BSH Home Appliances Corp., 289 F.R.D. 466, 480 (C.D. Cal. 2012)); and (6) the Mahoney Plaintiffs direct an affirmative misrepresentation claim “against all defendants” but Plaintiffs fail to allege any specific allegations against the Mayweather Defendants. b. Connecticut – Alessi Complaint: (1) Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”), Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 42-110a et seq. Plaintiff’s CUTPA claim fails because: (1) it is unclear what specific conduct by the Mayweather Defendants Plaintiff relies upon as the basis for his CUTPA claim ZeeBaas, LLC v. Koelewyn, No. 3:11cv11(VLB), 2012 U.S. Dist. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-6 Filed 09/07/16 Page 7 of 12 Page ID #:619 7 MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LEXIS 84665, at *20-21 (D. Conn. June 19, 2012)); (2) the allegations fail to show the Mayweather Defendants had access to information about Mr. Pacquiao’s injury (A Slice of Pie Prods., LLC v. Wayans Bros. Entm’t, 392 F.Supp.2d 297, 312 (D. Conn. 2005)); (3) the Mayweather Defendants had no duty to disclose the existence of an injury (Downes- Patterson Corp. v. First Nat’l Supermarkets, Inc., 64 Conn. App. 417, 427 (2001)); and (4) Plaintiffs fail to allege the Mayweather Defendants’ conduct was the proximate cause of their alleged harm (ZeeBaas, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84665, at *20). c. Florida – Brady Complaint: Florida Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”), Fla. Stat. § 501.204. Plaintiffs’ FDUTPA claim fails because Plaintiffs do not meet the elements of (1) a deceptive act or unfair practice; (2) causation; and (3) actual damages. Rollins, Inc. v. Butland, 951 So. 2d 860, 869 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 2006). d. Illinois – Gomez Complaint: Section 2 of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“ICFA”), 815 ILCS 505/2. This claim fails because: (1) Plaintiffs do not sufficiently allege the Mayweather Defendants engaged in a deceptive act or unfair practice (Spector v. Mondelez International, Inc., No. 15 C 4298, 2016 WL 1270493 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2016)); (2) the allegations fail to show the Mayweather Defendants had access to information about Mr. Pacquiao’s injury (White v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 368 Ill.App.3d 278, 285 (2006)); and (3) Plaintiffs fail to any damage proximately caused by the Mayweather Defendants (Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co., 201 Ill.2d 134, 155 (2001)). e. Michigan – Bradley Complaint: Michigan Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”), Mich. Comp. L. §445.903(1)(s). This claim fails because Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege that: (1) the Mayweather Defendants Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-6 Filed 09/07/16 Page 8 of 12 Page ID #:620 8 MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 had access to information about Mr. Pacquiao’s injury; (2) any information they had was material (Zine v. Chrysler Corp., 236 Mich. App. 261, 283 (1999)); (3) the Mayweather Defendants had a duty to disclose any information they had about Mr. Pacquiao’s injury (Hendricks v. DSW Shoe Warehouse, Inc., 444 F.Supp.2d 775, 782 (W.D. Mich. 2006)); or (4) the Mayweather Defendants’ silence would tend to mislead or deceive consumers (M.C.L. §445.903(1)(s)). f. Nevada – In Neidl, Plaintiff, a PPV customer, asserts claims for violation of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“NDTPA”), N.R.S. §598.0915 et seq,. under the provision of the Nevada Consumer Fraud Act (“NCFA”) allowing consumers to bring individual claims, N.R.S. §41.600(1). In DeHart, Plaintiffs, who purchased tickets to attend the Fight live, also assert claims under the NDTPA and NCFA based on the same allegations. All of these claims fail because: (1) a license to view a boxing match is not a “good or service” under the NDTPA (GOOD and SERVICE, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014)); (2) Plaintiffs do not sufficiently plead the Mayweather Defendants’ knowledge under the NDTPA (N.R.S. §§598.0915(7) & 598.0923(2)); (3) Plaintiffs fail to plead causation; and (4) Plaintiffs fail to plead an affirmative misrepresentation or a duty to disclose (Mallory v. McCarthy & Holthus, LLP, 2:14-CV-00396-KJD, 2015 WL 2185413, at *3 (D. Nev. May 11, 2015)). g. New Jersey – Bobadilla Complaint: New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“NJCFA”) N.J. Stat. §56:8-1 et seq. Plaintiffs’ claim fails because Plaintiffs fail to adequately allege that the Mayweather Defendants had: (1) knowledge of Mr. Pacquiao’s medical injury prior to the Fight (Alban v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. Civ. 09-5398 (DRD), 2010 WL 3636253, at *10 (D.N.J. Sept. 8, 2010)); and (2) the requisite intent (Hughes v. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-6 Filed 09/07/16 Page 9 of 12 Page ID #:621 9 MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Panasonic Consumer Elec. Co., No. 10-846 (SDW), 2011 WL 2976839, at *14 (D.N.J. July 21, 2011); In re Toshiba Am. HD DVD Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. 08-939 (DRD), 2009 WL 2940081, at *11-13 (D.N.J. Sept. 11, 2009)). h. [New York ] Barrios and Jammers Complaints: New York General Business Law § 349(a) (“GBL 349”). Plaintiffs’ GBL 349 claims fail for at least two reasons: (1) Plaintiffs do not adequately allege that the Mayweather Defendants knew of Mr. Pacquiao’s injury (Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp., 237 F. Supp. 2d 512, 529 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)); and (2) Plaintiffs do not allege an actual injury (Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., Inc., 720 N.E.2d 892, 897 (Ct. App. N.Y. 1999)). i. South Carolina – Thrailkill Complaint: South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (“SCUTPA”) S.C. Code Ann. §§39:5-10 et se q. This claim fails because: (1) Plaintiff cannot bring a class action under SCUTPA (Harris v. Sand Canyon Corp., 274 F.R.D. 556, 565 (D.S.C. 2010)); (2) Plaintiff fails to identify unlawful conduct on the part of the Mayweather Defendants (Health Promotion Specialists, LLC v. S. Carolina Bd. of Dentistry, 403 S.C. 623, 638 (2013)); and (3) Plaintiff fails to allege harm to the public interest (Ameristone Tile, LLC v. Ceramic Consulting Corp., 966 F. Supp. 2d 604, 621 (D.S.C. 2013)). j. Tennessee – Crabtree Complaint: Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), Tenn. Code. Ann §§ 47-18-101 et seq. This claim fails because: (1) Plaintiff cannot bring a class action under TCPA (Walker v. Sunrise Pontiac-GMC Truck, Inc., 249 S.W.3d 301, 310 (Tenn. 2008)); (2) Plaintiff fails to plead any affirmative misrepresentations (Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 47-18-104(b)(2); 104(b)(3); 104(b)(5); 104(b)(7); 104(b)(9); and 104(b)(21)); (3) the Mayweather Defendants did not have a duty to Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-6 Filed 09/07/16 Page 10 of 12 Page ID #:622 10 MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 disclose (Shah v. Racetrac Petroleum Co., 338 F.3d 557, 571 (6th Cir. 2003)). k. Texas – Craig Complaint: Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (“TDTPA”), Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.41 et seq. This claim fails because Plaintiffs have not and cannot show that the Mayweather Defendants engaged in a false, misleading, or deceptive act. Fowler v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 2 F. Supp. 3d 965, 973 (S.D. Tex. 2014). Specifically, Plaintiffs fail to allege that the Mayweather Defendants: (1) made a misrepresentation (Webb v. UnumProvident Corp., 507 F. Supp. 2d 668, 679 (WD Tex. 2005)), or (2) had prior knowledge of Mr. Pacquiao’s injury (Williams v. Heuser Chiropractic, No. 12-02-00019- CV, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 594, at *24 (Jan. 21, 2004)). l. Puerto Rico – Rodriguez Complaint: Plaintiff’s claim for fraudulent concealment fails because the Mayweather Defendants do not have a duty to Plaintiffs. Bonilla v. Volvo Car Corp., 150 F.3d 62, 70 (1st Cir. 1998). (6) In addition to their failure to plead with specificity under Rule 9(b), Plaintiffs’ Unjust Enrichment claims fail because: (1) Connecticut, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas Plaintiffs fail to plead any act making the Mayweather Defendants’ retention of any benefit unjust (Vertex, Inc. v. City of Waterbury, 278 Conn. 557, 573 (2006); Cleary v. Philip Morris Inc., 656 F.3d 511, 516 (7th Cir. 2011); WMCV Phase 3, LLC v. Shushok & McCoy, Inc., 750 F. Supp. 2d 1180, 1196-97 (D. Nev. 2010); Jurista v. Amerinox Processing, Inc., 492 B.R. 707, 754 (D.N.J. 2013); Gabriel v. Giant Eagle, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-00980, 2015 WL 4954578, at *15 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 19, 2015); Brooks v. GAF Materials Corp., 41 F. Supp. 3d 474, 485 (D.S.C. 2014); Freeman Indus., LLC v. Eastman Chem. Co., 172 S.W.3d 512, 525 (Tenn. 2005); Mary E. Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-6 Filed 09/07/16 Page 11 of 12 Page ID #:623 11 MAYWEATHER DEFENDANTS’ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Bivins Found. v. Highland Capital Mgmt. L.P., 451 S.W.3d 104, 111 (Tex. App. 2014); (2) in Illinois, New Jersey, and Texas Unjust Enrichment is not an independent cause of action (Cleary v. Philip Morris Inc., 656 F.3d 511, 517 (7th Cir. 2011) (Illinois); R.M. Dudley Const. Co., Inc. v. Dawson, 258 S.W.3d 694, 703 (Tex. App. 2008); Jurista v. Amerinox Processing, Inc., 492 B.R. 707, 754 (D.N.J. 2013)); (3) in New Jersey and Texas Unjust Enrichment is not available when there is an adequate remedy at law (Nat’l Amusements, Inc. v. New Jersey Tpk. Auth., 261 N.J. Super. 468, 478 (Ch. Div. 1992), aff’d, 275 N.J. Super. 134 (App. Div. 1994) (New Jersey); R.M. Dudley Const. Co., Inc. v. Dawson, 258 S.W.3d 694, 704 (Tex. App. 2008) (Texas)); and (4) California requires Plaintiff to allege a definite sum in a claim for Money had and Received (Fields v. Mobile Messengers Am., Inc., C 12-05160 WHA, 2013 WL 6774076, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2013)). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Mayweather Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ Complaints are DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ___________, 2016 ________________________________ HON. R. GARY KLAUSNER Judge, United States District Court for the Central District of California Case 2:15-cv-03381-RGK-PLA Document 52-6 Filed 09/07/16 Page 12 of 12 Page ID #:624