UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
For the Northern District of California
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Northern District of California
PHONEDOG,
Plaintiff,
v.
NOAH KRAVITZ,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/
No. C 11-03474 MEJ
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP
12(B)(1) AND 12(B)(6)
[Docket No. 4]
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff PhoneDog brings this action against one of its former employees, Defendant Noah
Kravitz, based on his continued use of a Twitter account that PhoneDog alleges it owns and contains
trade secrets, namely the compilation of subscribers and the password used to access the account.
Currently pending before the Court is Mr. Kravitz’s Motion to Dismiss PhoneDog’s Complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(1), and
for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Mot., Dkt. No. 4. PhoneDog has filed an
Opposition (Dkt. No. 13), and Mr. Kravitz has filed a Reply (Dkt. No. 17). On October 13, 2011, the
Court held a hearing on the matter. After carefully considering the parties’ arguments and the
controlling legal authorities, the Court DENIES without prejudice Mr. Kravitz’s 12(b)(1) motion and
GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART his 12(b)(6) motion as set forth below.
II. BACKGROUND
The relevant allegations, taken from PhoneDog’s Complaint, are as follows.
PhoneDog is an “interactive mobile news and reviews web resource,” that reviews mobile
products and services and provides users with resources needed to research, compare prices, and shop
from mobile carriers. Compl. ¶ 8. PhoneDog uses a variety of social media, including Twitter,
Facebook, and YouTube, to market and promote its services to users. Id. ¶ 9.
