EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
-
Upload
lara-pearson -
Category
Documents
-
view
231 -
download
0
Transcript of EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
-
7/31/2019 EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
1/31
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
120924.1 CV 12 4099 SINOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTERCLAIM PURSUANT TO
CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
CAROLYN HOECKER LUEDTKE (SBN: 207976)[email protected] H. BLAVIN (SBN: 230269)[email protected], TOLLES & OLSON LLP560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94015Telephone: (415) 512-4000Facsimile: (415) 512-4077
KELLY M. KLAUS (SBN: 161091)[email protected] K. WIRTH (SBN: 280800)[email protected] TOLLES & OLSON LLP355 South Grand Avenue, Thirty-Fifth FloorLos Angeles, CA 90071-9100Telephone: (213) 683-9100Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
ROBERT N. KLIEGER (SBN: 192962)[email protected] BRILL & KLIEGER LLP10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1725Los Angeles, California 90067Telephone: (310) 556-2700Facsimile: (310) 556-2705
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counter-DefendantElectronic Arts Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ZYNGA INC.,
Defendant.
CASE NO. CV 12 4099 SI
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TOSTRIKE COUNTERCLAIM PURSUANTTO CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. 425.16;MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES
Judge: Hon. Susan IllstonDate: January 18, 2013Time: 9:00 a.m.Crtrm.: 10
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS
Case3:12-cv-04099-SI Document30 Filed10/26/12 Page1 of 24
-
7/31/2019 EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
2/31
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
120924.1 1 CV 12 4099 SINOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTERCLAIM PURSUANT TO
CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
TO ZYNGA INC. AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on January 18, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter
as counsel may be heard, in the courtroom of the Honorable Susan Illston, located in the United
States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, Plaintiff and
Counter-Defendant Electronic Arts Inc. (EA) will and hereby does move this Court to Strike the
Counterclaim of Counter-Claimant Zynga Inc. (Zynga) pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP statute).
This Motion is made upon the following grounds:
Zyngas first claim for relief, for alleged breach of contract, asserts that EA breached the
terms of certain settlement agreements between the parties by filing its Complaint for Copyright
Infringement in this action. EAs filing of its complaint is a core protected activity under the anti-
SLAPP statute, such that Zynga is required to establish a probability of prevailing on its breach of
contract claim in order to survive EAs motion to strike. The plain and unambiguous terms of the
settlement agreements neither released the copyright infringement claim asserted by EA nor
restricted EAs filing of its complaint. Zynga therefore cannot establish a probability of prevailing
on its first claim for relief.
Zyngas second claim for relief charges EA with having violated California Business and
Professions Code 17200 by threatening to file an action against Zynga in connection with its
practices in soliciting, recruiting, and hiring EA employees. EAs alleged threats to initiate
litigation arise from its constitutionally protected right to petition for redress of grievances and are
protected activities under the anti-SLAPP statute, such that Zynga is required to establish a
probability of prevailing on its Section 17200 claim in order to survive EAs motion to strike.
Zynga cannot make that showing. EAs alleged threats are protected by Californias litigation
privilege and therefore cannot serve as a basis for Zyngas Section 17200 claim. Moreover, even
in the absence of that privilege, Zynga can neither plead nor prove any unlawful or unfair
business practice within the meaning of Section 17200.
Because each of Zyngas claims for relief is directed at protected activities under
Californias anti-SLAPP statute, and because Zynga cannot establish a probability of prevailing on
Case3:12-cv-04099-SI Document30 Filed10/26/12 Page2 of 24
-
7/31/2019 EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
3/31
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
120924.1 2 CV 12 4099 SINOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTERCLAIM PURSUANT TO
CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
either claim, Zyngas Counterclaim must be stricken in its entirety. EA is further entitled to
recover all of the attorneys fees and costs it incurs in connection with this motion and the
accompanying motion to dismiss. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 425.16(c)(1).
This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the attached Memorandum of Points and
Authorities, the Declaration of Stephen Bene filed concurrently herewith, all of the pleadings,
files, and records in this proceeding, all other matters of which the Court may take judicial notice,
and any argument or evidence that may be presented to or considered by the Court prior to its
ruling.
Dated: October 26, 2012 MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLPKENDALL BRILL & KLIEGER LLP
By: /s/ Robert N. Klieger
Robert N. Klieger
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant
Electronic Arts Inc.
Case3:12-cv-04099-SI Document30 Filed10/26/12 Page3 of 24
-
7/31/2019 EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
4/31
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
120924.1 1 CV 12 4099 SINOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTERCLAIM PURSUANT TO
CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 2
A. Zyngas Predatory Recruiting And Hiring Practices ................................................. 21. Steve Chiang ................................................................................................. 22. John Schappert .............................................................................................. 33. Travis Boatman and Jeff Karp ...................................................................... 34. Barry Cottle ................................................................................................... 4
B. EAs Present Complaint For Copyright Infringement .............................................. 5C. Zyngas Counterclaim ............................................................................................... 5
III. ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................ 5
A. Californias Anti-SLAPP Statute .............................................................................. 5B. Zyngas First Claim For Relief, For Breach of Contract, Is Barred By The
Anti-SLAPP Statute .................................................................................................. 6
1. Zyngas First Claim For Relief Arises From Protected Activity .................. 62. Zynga Cannot Establish A Probability Of Prevailing On Its First
Claim For Relief ............................................................................................ 7
(a) EA Did Not Release Its Claim For Copyright Infringement ............. 7(b) The Dispute Resolution Provisions Of The Settlement
Agreements Do Not Apply To EAs Copyright InfringementClaim ................................................................................................. 9
C. Zyngas Second Claim For Relief, For Violation Of California Business &Professions Code 17200, Is Barred By The Anti-SLAPP Statute ........................ 10
1. Zyngas Second Claim For Relief Arises From Protected Activity ............ 102. Zynga Cannot Establish A Probability Of Success On Its Second
Claim For Relief .......................................................................................... 12
(a) Zyngas Second Claim For Relief Is Barred By TheLitigation Privilege .......................................................................... 12
(b) Zynga Cannot Prove An Unlawful Or Unfair BusinessPractice Within The Meaning Of Section 17200 ............................ 13
Case3:12-cv-04099-SI Document30 Filed10/26/12 Page4 of 24
-
7/31/2019 EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
5/31
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
120924.1 2 CV 12 4099 SINOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTERCLAIM PURSUANT TO
CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
D. EA Is Entitled To Recover Its Attorneys Fees And Costs Incurred InConnection With Its Motion To Strike And Accompanying Motion ToDismiss .................................................................................................................... 15
IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 16
Case3:12-cv-04099-SI Document30 Filed10/26/12 Page5 of 24
-
7/31/2019 EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
6/31
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
120924.1 3 CV 12 4099 SINOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTERCLAIM PURSUANT TO
CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CasesAction Apartment Assn, Inc. v. City of Santa Monica,
41 Cal. 4th 1232 (2007) ....................................................................................................... 12
Baker Pac. Corp. v. Suttles,220 Cal. App. 3d 1148 (1990) ............................................................................................... 7
Blanchard v. DIRECTV, Inc.,123 Cal. App. 4th 903 (2004) ................................................................................... 11, 12-13
Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity,19 Cal. 4th 1106 (1999) ................................................................................................. 11, 12
Carr v. Asset Acceptance, LLC,
No. CV F 11-0890 LJO GSA, 2011 WL 3568338 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2011) ................... 12
Cel-Tech Commcns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co.,20 Cal. 4th 163 (1999) ................................................................................................... 14, 15
Feist Publns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.,499 U.S. 340 (1991) .............................................................................................................. 8
Feldman v. 1100 Park Lane Assocs.,160 Cal. App. 4th 1467 (2008) ...................................................................................... 11, 13
Fin. Corp. of Am. v. Wilburn,189 Cal. App. 3d 764 (1987) ............................................................................................... 12
Girafa.com, Inc. v. Alexa Internet, Inc.,No. C-08-02745 RMW, 2008 WL 4500858 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2008) ................................ 15
Graham-Sult v. Clainos,No. CV 10-4877 CW, 2012 WL 994754 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2012) ............................. 15-16
Kearney v. Foley & Lardner,553 F. Supp. 2d 1178 (S.D. Cal. 2008) ............................................................................... 16
Ketchum v. Moses,24 Cal. 4th 1122 (2001) ....................................................................................................... 15
Khoury v. Malys of Cal., Inc.,14 Cal. App. 4th 612 (1993) ........................................................................................... 13-14
L.A. Printex Indus., Inc. v. Aeropostale, Inc.,676 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................. 8
Marsh v. Anesthesia Servs. Med. Grp., Inc.,200 Cal. App. 4th 480 (2011) .............................................................................................. 15
Case3:12-cv-04099-SI Document30 Filed10/26/12 Page6 of 24
-
7/31/2019 EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
7/31
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
120924.1 4 CV 12 4099 SINOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTERCLAIM PURSUANT TO
CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Metabolife Intl, Inc. v. Wornick,213 F. Supp. 2d 1220 (S.D. Cal. 2002) ............................................................................... 16
Navellier v. Sletten,29 Cal. 4th 82 (2002) ......................................................................................................... 6, 7
Pardi v. Kaiser Found. Hosps.,389 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................. 8
Parrish v. Natl Football League Players Assn,534 F. Supp. 2d 1081 (N.D. Cal. 2007) .............................................................................. 14
Peoples Choice Wireless, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless,131 Cal. App. 4th 656 (2005) .............................................................................................. 15
Powertech Tech., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc.,No. C 11-6121 CW, 2012 WL 1835699 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2012) ..................................... 7
Price v. Stossel,
620 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................. 6
Rebel Oil Co., Inc. v. Atl. Richfield Co.,51 F.3d 1421 (9th Cir. 1995) .......................................................................................... 14-15
Ret. Grp. v. Galante,176 Cal. App. 4th 1226 (2009) ............................................................................................ 14
Rohde v. Wolf,154 Cal. App. 4th 28 (2007) ................................................................................................ 11
Rubin v. Green,4 Cal. 4th 1187 (1993) ......................................................................................................... 12
Seltzer v. Barnes,182 Cal. App. 4th 953 (2010) .............................................................................................. 13
Silberg v. Anderson,50 Cal. 3d 205 (1990) .................................................................................................... 12, 13
Sonoma Foods, Inc. v. Sonoma Cheese Factory, LLC,634 F. Supp. 2d 1009 (N.D. Cal. 2007) .............................................................................. 13
Stearns v. Select Comfort Retail Corp.,No. 08-2746 JF, 2009 WL 1635931 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2009) ........................................... 14
Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton,212 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2000) ................................................................................................. 9
U.S. ex rel. McLean v. Cnty. of Santa Clara,No. C05-01962 HRL, 2006 WL 2067061 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2006) ................................ 6-7
U.S. ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. ,190 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 1999) ................................................................................................. 6
Case3:12-cv-04099-SI Document30 Filed10/26/12 Page7 of 24
-
7/31/2019 EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
8/31
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
120924.1 5 CV 12 4099 SINOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTERCLAIM PURSUANT TO
CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Vess v. CibaGeigy Corp. USA,317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................... 6
Villacres v. ABM Indus. Inc.,189 Cal. App. 4th 562 (2010) ................................................................................................ 8
Weco Supply Co. v. Sherwin-Williams Co.,No. 1:10-CV-00171 AWI BAM, 2012 WL 1910078 (E.D. Cal. May 25, 2012) ......... 14, 15
StatutesCal. Bus. & Prof. Code 16600 ...................................................................................................... 14
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200 ...................................................................................................... 10
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 425.16 ........................................................................................... 1, 6, 15, 16
Cal. Civ. Code 47 ......................................................................................................................... 12
Case3:12-cv-04099-SI Document30 Filed10/26/12 Page8 of 24
-
7/31/2019 EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
9/31
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
1 CV 12 4099 SINOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF ELECTRONIC ARTS INC. TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO
CAL. CODE CIV. P. 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.
INTRODUCTION
In June 2012, Defendant and Counter-Claimant Zynga Inc. (Zynga) released its social
networking game entitled The Ville. Like most games released by Zynga, The Ville was not an
original creation, but was instead a slavish copy of a game developed by one of Zyngas
competitorsin this instance, The Sims Social developed by Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant
Electronic Arts Inc. (EA). EA commenced this action to redress Zyngas willful infringement of
EAs copyright.
Through its Counterclaim, Zynga wants to litigate an entirely different case, albeit one that
also has its roots in Zyngas unlawful business practices. Specifically, Zyngas Counterclaim
focuses on EAs efforts beginning in March 2010 to redress Zyngas violations of its contractual,
common law, and statutory obligations in connection with its recruitment and hiring of certain EA
executives. Zynga, of course, has consistently denied that there was anything improper about its
recruiting and hiring practices. With its Counterclaim, however, Zynga goes further. Zynga
charges that EA somehow behaved improperly by threatening to sue Zynga for its unlawful
practices, and that the parties settlements of those disputes somehow authorized Zyngas willful
infringement of EAs copyright in The Sims Social. Zynga is wrong on both counts.
EA brings this special motion to strike Zyngas Counterclaim pursuant to California Code
of Civil Procedure 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP statute). The alleged conduct at the heart of
Zyngas claims for reliefnamely, EAs filing of its Complaint for Copyright Infringement and
its threats to seek redress for Zyngas unlawful recruiting and hiring practicesare core activities
in furtherance of EAs right to petition for grievances and fall squarely within the protections of
the anti-SLAPP statute. To defeat EAs motion, Zynga therefore bears the burden of
demonstrating a probability of prevailing on each of its claims for relief. As discussed below and
in EAs accompanying motion to dismiss, Zynga cannot adequately plead, much less prove, its
claims for alleged breach of contract or violation of Section 17200 of the California Business and
Professions Code. The Court should therefore strike Zyngas Counterclaim in its entirety and
Case3:12-cv-04099-SI Document30 Filed10/26/12 Page9 of 24
-
7/31/2019 EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
10/31
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
120924.1 2 CV 12 4099 SINOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTERCLAIM PURSUANT TO
CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
award EA all of the attorneys fees and costs it has incurred, and hereafter incurs, in connection
with the briefing and any hearing on these motions.
II.
BACKGROUND
A. Zyngas Predatory Recruiting And Hiring PracticesBeginning at least as early as March 2010, Zynga engaged in a concerted effort to poach
high-level executives from EA who possessed competitively sensitive information regarding EAs
strategies and plans in the social gaming market. From January 2010 through January 2012,
Zynga poached five high-level executives (as well as more than four dozen other EA employees)
from EA who possessed competitively sensitive information regarding EAs strategies and plans
in the social gaming market. Declaration of Stephen Bene (Bene Declaration) 3. These five
were the executives who were most directly involved in, and possessed the most competitively
sensitive information regarding, EAs plans to develop and release social gaming products in
direct competition with Zynga. Id.
While recruiting from a competitor, standing alone, is generally lawful, it may not be
accomplished in a manner that violates governing contractual, common law, and statutory
standards. When Zyngas activities crossed the line (repeatedly) from permissible recruiting to
violations of its legal obligations, EA strongly objected and threatened Zynga with litigation.
Id. 5. In each such instance, Zynga avoided litigation through grudging (and typically short-
lived) commitments to conform its recruiting and hiring practices to the governing contracts and
law. Id. 7, 9, 11.
1. Steve ChiangOne of the first key EA executives hired by Zynga was Steve Chiang, who served as EA
SPORTSs Senior Vice President for Development and Group General Manager. Id. 6. In
early 2010, Chiang was just finishing the product design specifications for EAs first sports-
related Facebook game and was privy to all of EAs product and marketing plans for the social
and mobile gaming markets for the coming yearproducts and plans that were specifically
designed to compete head-to-head with Zynga. Id. On February 5, 2010, Chiang abruptly
Case3:12-cv-04099-SI Document30 Filed10/26/12 Page10 of 24
-
7/31/2019 EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
11/31
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
120924.1 3 CV 12 4099 SINOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTERCLAIM PURSUANT TO
CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
resigned from EA to join Zynga, and thereafter apparently helped Zynga identify and recruit other
of his former colleagues to Zynga. Id. Immediately following Chiangs departure, EA engaged
counsel in Northern California (where Zynga is based) and Florida (where Chiang had been
employed) to prepare a complaint and preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin Zyngas
misuse of EAs competitively sensitive information and Chiangs violations of his contractual
obligations to EA. Id. 7. Rather than face litigation, Zynga agreed to enter into a Confidential
Settlement and Release Agreement dated March 15, 2010. Id.
2. John SchappertZyngas next EA recruit was John Schappert, EAs Chief Operating Officer and the most
senior executive responsible for EAs social and mobile gaming businesses. Id. 8. It was
apparent that Zynga had targeted Schappert because of his critical position inside EA and his
intimate knowledge of EAs strategies and product plans in the social and mobile gaming markets,
including as reflected in EAs just-recently-completed operating plan for the coming fiscal year.
Id. Schappert also had detailed knowledge regarding the key executives and other personnel at EA
who were engaged in EAs social and mobile games businesses, which Zynga apparently
leveraged in subsequent recruiting. Id.
On April 4, 2011, EA and Zynga entered into a Stand-Still and Hold Harmless Agreement,
pursuant to which EA released Zynga from then-existing claims related to Zyngas recruitment of,
offer of employment to, or discussions with Schappert. Id. 9; Countercl., Ex. A. EA and Zynga
further agreed to refrain from initiating claims against one another related to Schapperts
recruitment for a specified period. Countercl., Ex. A When Schappert eventually chose to accept
Zyngas offer of employment, EA affirmed its release in an exhibit to the Stand-Still and Hold
Harmless Agreement (collectively, the Spring 2011 Agreement). Id.
3. Travis Boatman and Jeff KarpBarely four months later, Zynga targeted two more EA executives who had critical roles in
EAs plans to compete with Zynga in the Facebook and mobile gaming markets: Travis Boatman,
EAs Senior Vice President in charge of developing games for mobile devices, who was
responsible for the development of more than a dozen games in EAs pipeline, including games
Case3:12-cv-04099-SI Document30 Filed10/26/12 Page11 of 24
-
7/31/2019 EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
12/31
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
120924.1 4 CV 12 4099 SINOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTERCLAIM PURSUANT TO
CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
that were designed to compete directly with Zynga; and Jeff Karp, the head of EAs casual games
division, who had detailed knowledge regarding EAs marketing strategies in the social gaming
market. Bene Decl. 10. By this point in time, a clear pattern had developed Zynga was using
its recent EA recruits to identify other high-ranking EA executives who possessed highly
confidential information related to EAs plans for competing with Zynga, and then recruiting those
individuals to Zynga for the purpose of gaining access to that information and using it to diffuse
the competitive threat from EA. Id.
EA again engaged outside counsel to prepare claims against Zynga and the former EA
executives who were working with Zynga to execute this unlawful plan. Id. 11. As before,
Zynga agreed to reform its behavior rather than face imminent litigation, and the parties entered
into a Confidential Settlement and Release Agreement dated September 21, 2011 (the Fall 2011
Agreement and, collectively with the Spring 2011 Agreement, the Settlement Agreements),
pursuant to which EA agreed to release claims related to Zyngas recruitment, hiring, and
employment of former or current EA employees in exchange for express contractual undertakings
by Zynga, Schappert, Chiang, Karp, and Boatman, including limited non-solicitation obligations
through December 31, 2011. Id. 11; Countercl., Ex. B.
4. Barry CottleWith the ink barely dry on the Fall 2011 Agreement, Zynga undertook to recruit Barry
Cottle, the chief executive of EA Interactive, the division of EA that was responsible for EAs
mobile and social gaming businesses. Bene Decl. 12. Cottle wasthe person at EA who was
most directly responsible for competing with Zynga in the Facebook and mobile gaming markets.
Id. Zynga solicited and encouraged Cottle to depart EA for Zynga at the same time that he was
crafting EAs strategic plan for competing with Zynga in the mobile and social gaming markets.
Id. Zyngas efforts were successful, and Cottle resigned EA to join Zynga in January 2012,
reportedly becoming one of Zyngas highest-paid executives. Id.
EA again engaged outside counsel to prepare a complaint against Zynga and the former EA
employees who it believed had breached their contractual undertakings to EA in an effort
improperly to gain access to EAs confidential strategies and plans for competing with Zynga. Id.
Case3:12-cv-04099-SI Document30 Filed10/26/12 Page12 of 24
-
7/31/2019 EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
13/31
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
120924.1 5 CV 12 4099 SINOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTERCLAIM PURSUANT TO
CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
13. Since the claims in the draft complaint were based on breaches of the Fall 2011 Agreement,
EA complied with that agreements dispute resolution procedures as a prerequisite to suit
including participating in meetings between EAs and Zyngas General Counsels and senior
business representatives and, when those proved unsuccessful, participating in two mediation
sessions before the Hon. William J. Cahill (Ret.). Id. Although those mediation sessions have not
yet yielded a settlement, Zynga appears to have reformed its recruiting practices in the meantime,
and EA, while reserving all rights, has therefore held its complaint in abeyance. Id.
B. EAs Present Complaint For Copyright InfringementZynga released The Ville for Facebook in June 2012. Compl. 59. As alleged in EAs
Complaint for Copyright Infringement, The Ville copies the original, creative expression and
distinctive audio-visual elements of EAs The Sims Social. EAs complaint asserts a single cause
of action, for infringement of its copyright in The Sims Social in violation of the Copyright Act, 17
U.S.C. 501. EAs complaint does not allege that Zynga violated any contractual, statutory, or
common law duties through its solicitation, recruiting, or hiring of Chiang, Schappert, Boatman,
Karp, Cottle, or any other EA employee; does not assert claims for breach of the Settlement
Agreements; and does not seek relief for any wrongful conduct beyond Zyngas unabashed
infringement of EAs copyright in The Sims Social.
C. Zyngas CounterclaimOn September 9, 2012, Zynga filed its Counterclaim against EA. Zynga asserts two claims
for relief: First, that EA breached the Settlement Agreements by filing its Complaint for
Copyright Infringement; and second, that EA violated Section 17200 of the California Business
and Professions Code by repeatedly threatening to sue Zynga for its predatory and unlawful
recruiting and hiring practices. As discussed below, neither claim has any merit.
III.
ARGUMENT
A. Californias Anti-SLAPP StatuteCalifornias anti-SLAPP statute authorizes a defendant to bring a special motion to strike
a cause of action that arises from any act in furtherance of the right of petition or free
Case3:12-cv-04099-SI Document30 Filed10/26/12 Page13 of 24
-
7/31/2019 EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
14/31
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
120924.1 6 CV 12 4099 SINOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTERCLAIM PURSUANT TO
CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
speech in connection with a public issue, unless the plaintiff has established that there is a
probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 425.16(b)(1).
Although it is a state statute, Californias anti-SLAPP protections apply to state law claims
brought in federal court. See U.S. ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., 190 F.3d
963, 97173 (9th Cir. 1999).
In evaluating anti-SLAPP motions, courts engage in a two-part inquiry. First, a defendant
must make an initial prima facie showing that the plaintiffs suit arises from an act in furtherance
of the defendants rights of petition or free speech. Vess v. CibaGeigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d
1097, 1110 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). Second, once the defendant has
made a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate a probability of
prevailing on the challenged claims. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The plaintiffs
burden is comparable to that used on a motion for judgment as a matter of law. Price v. Stossel,
620 F.3d 992, 1000 (9th Cir. 2010). The plaintiff must demonstrate that the complaint is legally
sufficient and supported by a prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the
evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited. Id. at 1000 (internal quotation marks
omitted). An anti-SLAPP motion must be granted when a plaintiff presents an insufficient legal
basis for the claims or when no evidence of sufficient substantiality exists to support a judgment
for the plaintiff. Id.
B. Zyngas First Claim For Relief, For Breach of Contract, Is Barred By The Anti-SLAPP Statute
1. Zyngas First Claim For Relief Arises From Protected ActivityZynga first claims that EA breached the Settlement Agreements by bringing suit against
Zynga for claims purportedly released by those agreements and without first comply[ing] with
the mandatory dispute resolution provisions set forth in those agreements. Countercl. 79. As
the California Supreme Court held inNavellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal. 4th 82 (2002), [a] claim for
relief filed in federal district court indisputably is a statement or writing made before a judicial
proceeding and therefore constitutes protected activity within the meaning of the anti-SLAPP
statute. Id. at 90; see U.S. ex rel. McLean v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, No. C05-01962 HRL, 2006 WL
Case3:12-cv-04099-SI Document30 Filed10/26/12 Page14 of 24
-
7/31/2019 EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
15/31
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
120924.1 7 CV 12 4099 SINOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTERCLAIM PURSUANT TO
CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2067061, at *3-5 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2006) (filing of lawsuit constitutes protected activity under
anti-SLAPP statute). Because Zyngas first claim for relief is expressly predicated on EAs filing
of its Complaint for Copyright Infringement, that claim falls squarely within the ambit of the
anti-SLAPP statues arising from prong. Navellier, 29 Cal. 4th at 90.
That Zyngas first claim for relief is based in part on EAs alleged failure to comply with
the dispute resolution provisions of the Settlement Agreements does not take that claim outside the
scope of the anti-SLAPP statute. Zynga contends that EA breached the dispute resolution
provisions byfiling suitwithout first complying with those provisions. Countercl. 79(b). But for
EAs filing of its copyright infringement complaint, Zynga would have no claim. The breach of
contract claim therefore arises in its entirety from EAs protected activity, see Powertech Tech.,
Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., No. C 11-6121 CW, 2012 WL 1835699, at *7 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2012), and
Zynga must establish a probability of prevailing on that claim to survive EAs motion to strike.
2. Zynga Cannot Establish A Probability Of Prevailing On Its First Claim ForRelief
Zynga cannot establish a probability of prevailing on its breach of contract claim. To preva
on this claim, Zynga must plead and prove (a) that EA released its present claim for copyright
infringement as part of the Settlement Agreements, and/or (b) that EAs copyright infringement
claim is governed by the dispute resolution provisions of those agreements. Zynga can do neither.
(a) EA Did Not Release Its Claim For Copyright InfringementEAs single-count complaint in this action is simple and straightforward: Through its
release and distribution ofThe Ville beginning in June 2012, Zynga has infringed, and continues to
infringe, EAs copyright in The Sims Social. This infringement claim falls far outside both the
temporal and subject matter scope of the releases set forth in the Settlement Agreements, and those
agreements are therefore incapable of barring EAs claim.
Under California law, to be valid and enforceable, a written release exculpating a
tortfeasor from liability for future negligence or misconduct must be clear, unambiguous and
explicit in expressing the intent of the parties. Baker Pac. Corp. v. Suttles, 220 Cal. App. 3d
1148, 1153 (1990). Under the Spring 2011 Agreement, EA released all possible disputes and
Case3:12-cv-04099-SI Document30 Filed10/26/12 Page15 of 24
-
7/31/2019 EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
16/31
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
120924.1 8 CV 12 4099 SINOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTERCLAIM PURSUANT TO
CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
claims arising out of or related to Zyngas recruitment of, or offer of employment to, or
discussions with Schappert , whether known or unknown that could have been assertedby EA
against Zynga and/or Schappert. Countercl., Ex. A (emphasis added). In other words, EA
released only claims existing as of the date of that agreement. The releases in the Fall 2011
Agreement were even more expressly limited to claims that EA may possess arising from any
omissions, acts or facts that have occurred up until and including the Effective Date [September
21, 2011]. Id., Ex. B (emphasis added). Neither agreement included a release of claims for
future wrongful acts.
EAs present complaint is directed at a single wrongful actnamely, Zyngas
infringement of EAs copyright in The Ville. Zyngas infringing conduct began in June 2012 and
continues to the present. The infringement claim therefore is not one that EA could have
asserted in April 2011, nor is it one that arises from acts occurring before September 21, 2011. It
therefore falls outside the temporal scope of the releases. See Pardi v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., 389
F.3d 840, 845 n.3, 845-47, 849 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding release of claims arising from or
attributable to any incident or event, occurring, in whole or in part, on or before the date of [the
settlement agreement] to not bar claims based on acts occurring after the agreement); Villacres v.
ABM Indus. Inc., 189 Cal. App. 4th 562, 572, 591 (2010) (holding that release did not waive
future claims where release stated plaintiffs release and forever discharge [defendants] from any
and all claims of any kind, whether known or unknown, which have been or could have been
asserted against [defendants]).
Moreover, timing is not Zyngas only problem. EAs copyright infringement claim also
falls outside the subject matterof the releases. To establish copyright infringement, [EA] must
prove two elements: (1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements
of [The Sims Social] that are original. L.A. Printex Indus., Inc. v. Aeropostale, Inc., 676 F.3d
841, 846 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Feist Publns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361
(1991)). The releases in the Settlement Agreements did not waive EAs claim to ownership of the
copyright in The Sims Social or its contention that The Ville (which did not yet even exist) copied
original elements of EAs game. Rather, EA released only claims related to Zyngas recruiting,
Case3:12-cv-04099-SI Document30 Filed10/26/12 Page16 of 24
-
7/31/2019 EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
17/31
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
120924.1 9 CV 12 4099 SINOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTERCLAIM PURSUANT TO
CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
hiring, or employment of EA employees. See Countercl., Ex. A (releasing claims arising out of
or related to Zyngas recruitment of, or offer of employment to, or discussions with Schappert);
id., Ex. B (releasing claims that relate to the recruitment and/or hire and/or employment of former
or current EA employees). It was Zyngas decision to slavishly copy The Sims Social, and not its
poaching of EA executives, that has landed Zynga in court.1
In short, EAs Complaint for Copyright Infringement falls outside both the temporal and
subject matter scope of the releases set forth in the Settlement Agreements, and those releases are
therefore incapable of barring EAs claim in this action.
(b) The Dispute Resolution Provisions Of The Settlement Agreements DoNot Apply To EAs Copyright Infringement Claim
Zynga fares no better on its claim that EA breached the Settlement Agreements by failing
to follow the dispute resolution procedures of those agreements in connection with its copyright
infringement claim. In the first instance, the Spring 2011 Agreement does not contain any dispute
resolution procedure at all.2
The Fall 2011 Agreement does set forth certain dispute resolution
procedures that EA must follow [s]hould EA believe that Zynga, Schappert, Chiang, Karp and/or
Boatman, or any of them, has breached this Agreement. However, the only contractual
1 Zynga asserts that the Settlement Agreements released Zynga from the alleged claim
EA asserts predicated on the targeting and hiring of former EA employees alleged in
Paragraphs 53-57 of EAs Complaint. Countercl. 77. EA, however, does not assert any claim
in Paragraphs 53-57 of its Complaint, which are included only in the way of
background. Moreover, the fact that Zynga had access to The Sims Social is undisputed, and not
dependent on Zyngas hiring of the former employees, because the game was widely distributed
on Facebook for nearly a year before Zynga released its copycat game, The Ville. Compl. 58;
Answer 58; see Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477, 482-83 (9th Cir. 2000)
(holding access established through widespread dissemination of plaintiffs work).
2 Paragraph 2(b) of that agreement provides that, [i]f, following April 4, 2011, EA has a
good faith belief that a potential new claim or basis for liability against Zynga, its officers,
directors and employees and/or Schappert has arisen that is related to the Schappert Recruitment,
then EA must notify Zynga and/or Schappert in writing within 72 hours after EAs CEO or
General Counsel becomes aware of the facts substantiating such potential new claim. However,
as discussed above, EAs copyright infringement claim in this action is not related to Zyngas
recruitment of, offer of employment to, or discussions with Schappert, and the notice provision
therefore does not apply.
Case3:12-cv-04099-SI Document30 Filed10/26/12 Page17 of 24
-
7/31/2019 EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
18/31
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
120924.1 10 CV 12 4099 SINOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTERCLAIM PURSUANT TO
CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
obligations created by the Fall 2011 Agreement, and the only terms that the identified parties are
therefore capable of breaching, are set forth in paragraph 1 of that agreement:
(a) [Former EA executive] Boatman will not in any way be involved in the
solicitation or hiring of any Third-Party Game Developer listed in Attachment A, or
any employee thereof, until after the date set forth for each such Third-Party Game
Developer;
(b) [B]etween the Effective Date of this Agreement and November 30, 2011, [former
EA executive] Karp will not personally participate in any marketing efforts of
Zynga pertaining to any SIMS-Social equivalent unreleased Zynga game currently
under active development by Zynga; and
(c) [T]hrough December 31, 2011, no former EA employee now working for Zynga
will (i) directly or indirectly solicit any EA employees to work for Zynga, or (ii)
use information regarding an EA employee acquired while working at EA, in order
to influence Zyngas recruitment of an EA employee.
Countercl., Ex. B. EAs Complaint for Copyright Infringement does not allege a breach of any of
these obligations, and therefore the dispute resolution procedures of the Fall 2011 Agreement
simply do not apply.
In sum, Zynga cannot demonstrate even a possibility, let alone a probability, of prevailing
on its first claim for relief, for breach of contract, and that claim for relief must be stricken.
C. Zyngas Second Claim For Relief, For Violation Of California Business & ProfessionsCode 17200, Is Barred By The Anti-SLAPP Statute
1. Zyngas Second Claim For Relief Arises From Protected ActivityZyngas second claim for relief, for alleged violation of Section 17200 of the California
Business and Professions Code, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200, is based upon EAs alleged
threats to sue Zynga in connection with its solicitation, recruitment, and hiring of EA employees.
Countercl. 85-86. Those alleged threats by EA fall squarely within the protections of the anti-
SLAPP statute.
Case3:12-cv-04099-SI Document30 Filed10/26/12 Page18 of 24
-
7/31/2019 EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
19/31
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
120924.1 11 CV 12 4099 SINOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTERCLAIM PURSUANT TO
CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
The petitioning activities protected by the anti-SLAPP statute include not only the filing of
litigation, but also threats and demands made in anticipation of litigation. See Briggs v. Eden
Council for Hope & Opportunity, 19 Cal. 4th 1106, 1115 (1999) ([J]ust as communications
preparatory to or in anticipation of the bringing of an action or other official proceeding are within
the protection of the litigation privilege of Civil Code section 47 such statements are equally
entitled to the benefits of section 425.16.) (internal quotation marks omitted). Such pre-litigation
statements arise from a partys constitutionally protected right to petition for redress of
grievances and therefore constitute protected activities under the anti-SLAPP statute. Blanchard
v. DIRECTV, Inc., 123 Cal. App. 4th 903, 918 (2004).3
Here, Zyngas Counterclaim hinges on EAs intention to sue Zynga for its practices in
soliciting, recruiting, and hiring EA employees, and the actions that Zynga allegedly had to take to
stave off imminent litigation. See Countercl. 86. EA prepared not just one but several draft
complaints based upon Zyngas repeated poaching of EA executives, and EA invoked and
scrupulously complied with the dispute resolution procedures that were a contractual prerequisite
to suit for breach of the Fall 2011 Agreement. See Bene Decl. 7, 13. In short, for more than
two years the spectre of litigation [has] loomed over all communications between EA and Zynga
related to Zyngas solicitation, recruitment, and hiring of EA employees. Rohde v. Wolf, 154 Cal.
App. 4th 28, 36 (2007). Under these circumstances, EAs actions constituted petitioning activities
3 Zynga apparently believes that it can circumvent the anti-SLAPP statute by alleging that
EA disavowed the merits of the litigation it intended to file against Zynga and conceded that its
claims would be subjectively meritless and filed for an improper purpose. See Countercl. 85,
86. But even if those allegations were true (which they are not), EAs right to seek redress is
protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. See Blanchard, 123 Cal. App. 4th at 920-21 (holding thatdemand letter constituted protected activity even if sender knew it did not have a legally viable
claim). Indeed, in Feldman v. 1100 Park Lane Associates, 160 Cal. App. 4th 1467 (2008), the
California Court of Appeal specifically rejectedthe argument that a plaintiff can defeat an anti-
SLAPP motion simply by asserting that litigation to which the statement is related is without
merit, and therefore the proponent of the litigation could not in good faith have believed it had a
legally viable claim. Id. at 1489. As long as litigation is under serious contemplation, neither the
speakers subjective belief in the merits of its position nor its motivations for filing suit have any
bearing on the anti-SLAPP analysis. Id.
Case3:12-cv-04099-SI Document30 Filed10/26/12 Page19 of 24
-
7/31/2019 EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
20/31
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
120924.1 12 CV 12 4099 SINOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTERCLAIM PURSUANT TO
CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
protected by the anti-SLAPP statute, and thus, to avoid EAs motion to strike, Zynga must
establish a probability of prevailing on its Section 17200 claim.
2. Zynga Cannot Establish A Probability Of Success On Its Second Claim ForRelief
Zynga cannot establish a probability of success on its Section 17200 claim for two
independent reasons: First, EAs alleged threats to sue Zynga in connection with its solicitation,
recruitment, and hiring of EA employees were absolutely privileged under Section 47(b) of the
California Civil Code, and therefore cannot serve as the basis for a Section 17200 claim. Second,
even if the litigation privilege did not apply, Zynga cannot prove an unlawful or unfair
business practice within the meaning of Section 17200.
(a) Zyngas Second Claim For Relief Is Barred By The Litigation PrivilegeThe litigation privilege, which is codified as California Civil Code 47(b), generally
precludes statements made in connection with actual or contemplated judicial or quasi-judicial
proceedings from being used as the basis for a cause of action. See Action Apartment Assn, Inc.
v. City of Santa Monica, 41 Cal. 4th 1232, 1241 (2007);Briggs, 19 Cal. 4th at 1115; Silberg v.
Anderson, 50 Cal. 3d 205, 216 (1990). The litigation privilege is expansive and applies to nearly
all tort actions, including those arising under Section 17200. Carr v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, No.
CV F 11-0890 LJO GSA, 2011 WL 3568338, at *9-10 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2011);Rubin v. Green,
4 Cal. 4th 1187, 1193-94 (1993). Indeed, the only recognized exception is for malicious
prosecution actions. See Rubin, 4 Cal. 4th at 1194. EAs threats of litigation, upon which Zyngas
Section 17200 claim are premised, fall squarely within the scope of the litigation privilege. See,
e.g., Fin. Corp. of Am. v. Wilburn, 189 Cal. App. 3d 764, 777 (1987) (It is established that
demands to resolve disputes made in anticipation of litigation are privileged [in accordance with
section 47(b)].).
Zyngas contention that EA intended to file subjectively meritless claims, and to do so
for an improper, anti-competitive purpose, does not allow it to sidestep the litigation privilege. To
the contrary, the litigation privilege is simply a test of connectedness or logical relationship of a
statement to actual or anticipated litigation, and it applies without regard to motives, morals,
Case3:12-cv-04099-SI Document30 Filed10/26/12 Page20 of 24
-
7/31/2019 EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
21/31
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
120924.1 13 CV 12 4099 SINOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTERCLAIM PURSUANT TO
CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
ethics or intent. Blanchard, 123 Cal. App. 4th at 922 (quoting Silberg, 50 Cal. 3d at 220). The
California Court of Appeals discussion in Feldman, supra, is particularly instructive. The
landlord in that case (Hawkins) threatened his tenants (the Feldmans) with legal action if they did
not agree to pay market rent, asserted that they could not win an eviction suit, and told them that
whatever the result of the threatened eviction, they would never be able to rent another apartment
in San Francisco. Feldman, 160 Cal. App. 4th at 1474-75. The Feldmans argued that Hawkinss
threats of litigation were made in bad faith and therefore were not privileged. Id. The court
disagreed:
Whether taken individually or as a whole, Hawkinss statements were clearly
connected to and made in anticipation of the eviction action they threatened. Whether
done maliciously or without reasonable grounds to believe that the Feldmans were
unlawful occupants of the premises, the statements were privileged.
Id. at 1489; see id. at 1489-90 (explaining that privilege attached even if Hawkins used the threat
of an eviction action as a negotiating tactic, hoping to persuade the Feldmans to leave or pay
market rent).
Because the litigation privilege applies as a matter of law to EAs allegedly wrongful
activities, Zynga cannot demonstrate a probability of prevailing on its Section 17200 cause of
action and EAs motion to strike Zyngas second claim for relief must be granted. See Seltzer v.
Barnes, 182 Cal. App. 4th 953, 972 (2010) (remanding with instructions to grant anti-SLAPP
motion based upon litigation privilege).
(b) Zynga Cannot Prove An Unlawful Or Unfair Business PracticeWithin The Meaning Of Section 17200
Even if the litigation privilege was not an absolute bar to Zyngas Section 17200 claim,
Zynga still could not establish an unlawful or unfair business practice as required to prevail on
its second claim for relief.
To establish an unlawful business practice under Section 17200, a plaintiff must identify
and prove that the defendant violated a particular statute, regulation, or other law. See Sonoma
Foods, Inc. v. Sonoma Cheese Factory, LLC, 634 F. Supp. 2d 1009, 1022 (N.D. Cal. 2007);
Case3:12-cv-04099-SI Document30 Filed10/26/12 Page21 of 24
-
7/31/2019 EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
22/31
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
120924.1 14 CV 12 4099 SINOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTERCLAIM PURSUANT TO
CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Khoury v. Malys of Cal., Inc., 14 Cal. App. 4th 612, 619 (1993). Here, the only law that Zynga
alleges EA has violated, and that serves as the predicate for its Section 17200 claim, is Section
16600 of the California Business and Professions Code. Section 16600 states that, with certain
exceptions, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession,
trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 16600. Zynga does
not identify any contract that allegedly ran afoul of Section 16600, but instead contends that EAs
threats of litigation discouraged employees from leaving EA and therefore operated as a de facto
non-compete. Countercl. 90. By its very terms, however, Section 16600 applies only to anti-
competitive contracts, and not to anti-competitive activity more generally. See Ret. Grp. v.
Galante, 176 Cal. App. 4th 1226, 1238 (2009) (stating that Section 16600 applies only to
contractual undertakings). Because Section 16600 does not apply, there is no predicate
unlawful act to sustain its Section 17200 claim.
Nor can Zynga establish an unfair business practice within the meaning of Section 17200
In cases between competitors, a business practice is unfair only if it threatens an incipient
violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects
are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law, or otherwise significantly threatens or
harms competition. Cel-Tech Commcns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 187
(1999). Although Section 17200 is broad, unfair practices under Californias unfair competition
law must still at least threaten significant harm to competition because of a violation of a
recognized policy of antitrust law. Parrish v. Natl Football League Players Assn, 534 F. Supp.
2d 1081, 1092 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (emphasis added); see Weco Supply Co. v. Sherwin-Williams Co.,
No. 1:10-CV-00171 AWI BAM, 2012 WL 1910078, at *5 (E.D. Cal. May 25, 2012) (Under the
Cel-Tech test, courts look to the federal antitrust laws to evaluate an unfair competition claim.).
The antitrust laws are intended not to protect competition generally, but instead to prevent
harm to competition manifested as higher prices, lower output, or decreased quality in the products
within a defined market. Stearns v. Select Comfort Retail Corp., No. 08-2746 JF, 2009 WL
1635931, at *13 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2009). The focus is on injury to the consumerin the form of
higher prices, harmed allocative efficiency, or diminished quality of goods or services sold. Rebel
Case3:12-cv-04099-SI Document30 Filed10/26/12 Page22 of 24
-
7/31/2019 EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
23/31
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
120924.1 15 CV 12 4099 SINOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTERCLAIM PURSUANT TO
CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Oil Co. v. Atl. Richfield Co., 51 F.3d 1421, 1433 (9th Cir. 1995); Weco Supply Co., 2012 WL
1910078, at *5;Marsh v. Anesthesia Servs. Med. Grp., Inc., 200 Cal. App. 4th 480, 501-02 (2011)
Injury to a competitor is not equivalent to injury to competition; only the latter is the proper focus
of antitrust laws. Cel-Tech, 20 Cal. 4th at 186; see Girafa.com, Inc. v. Alexa Internet, Inc., No. C-
08-02745 RMW, 2008 WL 4500858, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2008) (To be sure, [defendants]
conduct threatens its competitor[plaintiff], but that is not the same as threatening competition.)
(emphasis in original).
Zynga does not plead the type of antitrust injury required to establish an unfair business
practice under Section 17200. Zynga claims that it was forced to unnecessarily incur additional
costs to combat EAs unlawful conduct and that EAs litigation threats have adversely
impact[ed] Zynga, as well as other industry competitors, from lawfully competing for EAs
employees. Countercl. 90, 93. Injury to a competitor, however, is not enough. Cel-Tech, 20
Cal. 4th at 186; seePeoples Choice Wireless Inc. v. Verizon Wireless, 131 Cal. App. 4th 656, 668
(2005) (holding that court cannot consider injury to competitors, as opposed to injury to
competition generally, in ruling on unfair business practices claim). Thus, regardless of whether
the conduct alleged by Zynga may have been unfair in the colloquial sense of the word, it is no
unfair within the meaning of Section 17200. Weco Supply, 2012 WL 1910078, at *5.
Zyngas inability to plead or prove an unlawful or unfair business practice within the
meaning of Section 17200 provides an independent basis upon which EAs motion to strike must b
granted.
D. EA Is Entitled To Recover Its Attorneys Fees And Costs Incurred In ConnectionWith Its Motion To Strike And Accompanying Motion To Dismiss
Under the California anti-SLAPP statute, an award of attorneys fees and costs to a
successful defendant is mandatory. Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal. 4th 1122, 1131 (2001); see Cal.
Civ. Proc. Code 425.16(c) ([A] prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be
entitled to recover his or her attorneys fees and costs.) (emphasis added). In addition to fees and
costs incurred directly in connection with an anti-SLAPP motion, [a] prevailing party can recover
fees not incurred directly on the anti-SLAPP motion if the work done is based entirely on a
Case3:12-cv-04099-SI Document30 Filed10/26/12 Page23 of 24
-
7/31/2019 EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
24/31
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
120924.1 16 CV 12 4099 SINOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTERCLAIM PURSUANT TO
CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
common factual scenario and the issues are inextricably intertwined. Graham-Sult v. Clainos,
No. CV 10-4877 CW, 2012 WL 994754, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2012) (quoting Kearney v.
Foley & Lardner, 553 F. Supp. 2d 1178, 1184 (S.D. Cal. 2008)).
Here, the work of EAs counsel on the motion to dismiss being filed concurrently herewith
is based entirely on a common factual scenario, and is inextricably intertwined with, this anti-
SLAPP motion, such that EAs attorneys fees and costs incurred in connection with its motion to
dismiss should be included in the award. See Metabolife Intl, Inc. v. Wornick, 213 F. Supp. 2d
1220, 1223-24 (S.D. Cal. 2002) (stating that anti-SLAPP statute must be construed broadly to
entitle prevailing defendant to attorneys fees and costs incurred in connection with motion to
dismiss). EA will submit a formal motion for attorneys fees with supporting declarations in the
event that the Court grants this motion.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, EA respectfully requests that the Court grant EAs special
motion to strike Zyngas Counterclaim pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 425.16
and further award EA the attorneys fees and costs that it incurs in connection with this and the
accompanying motion to dismiss.
Dated: October 26, 2012 MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP
KENDALL BRILL & KLIEGER LLP
By: /s/ Robert N. Klieger
Robert N. Klieger
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counter-DefendantElectronic Arts Inc.
Case3:12-cv-04099-SI Document30 Filed10/26/12 Page24 of 24
-
7/31/2019 EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
25/31
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
CV 12 4099 SI
DECLARATION OF STEPHEN BENE
CAROLYN HOECKER LUEDTKE (SBN: 207976)[email protected] H. BLAVIN (SBN: 230269)[email protected], TOLLES & OLSON LLP560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94015Telephone: (415) 512-4000Facsimile: (415) 512-4077
KELLY M. KLAUS (SBN: 161091)[email protected] K. WIRTH (SBN: 280800)[email protected] TOLLES & OLSON LLP355 South Grand Avenue, Thirty-Fifth FloorLos Angeles, CA 90071-9100Telephone: (213) 683-9100Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
ROBERT N. KLIEGER (SBN: 192962)[email protected] BRILL & KLIEGER LLP10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1725Los Angeles, California 90067Telephone: (310) 556-2700Facsimile: (310) 556-2705
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counter-DefendantElectronic Arts Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ZYNGA INC.,
Defendant.
CASE NO. CV 12 4099 SI
DECLARATION OF STEPHEN BENE INSUPPORT OF ELECTRONIC ARTSINC.S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANTTO CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. 425.16
Judge: Hon. Susan IllstonDate: January 18, 2013Time: 9:00 a.m.Crtrm.: 10
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS
Case3:12-cv-04099-SI Document30-1 Filed10/26/12 Page1 of 5
-
7/31/2019 EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
26/31
Case3:12-cv-04099-SI Document30-1 Filed10/26/12 Page2 of 5
-
7/31/2019 EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
27/31
Case3:12-cv-04099-SI Document30-1 Filed10/26/12 Page3 of 5
-
7/31/2019 EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
28/31
Case3:12-cv-04099-SI Document30-1 Filed10/26/12 Page4 of 5
-
7/31/2019 EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
29/31
Case3:12-cv-04099-SI Document30-1 Filed10/26/12 Page5 of 5
-
7/31/2019 EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
30/31
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
CV 12 4099 SI
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.'S MOTION TO STRIKE
PURSUANT TO CAL. CODE. CIV. PROC. 425.16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ZYNGA INC.,
Defendant.
CASE NO. CV 12 4099 SI
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTINGELECTRONIC ARTS INC.S MOTIONTO STRIKE PURSUANT TO CAL. CODECIV. PROC. 425.16
Date: January 18, 2013Time: 9:00 a.m.Courtroom: 10
Complaint Filed: August 3, 2012AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS
Case3:12-cv-04099-SI Document30-2 Filed10/26/12 Page1 of 2
-
7/31/2019 EA v Zynga EA Motion to Strike Zynga Counterclaim
31/31
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
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Electronic Arts Inc.s
Motion to Strike the Counterclaim of Defendant/Counter-Claimant Zynga Inc. pursuant to
California Code of Civil Procedure 425.16.
The Court, having fully considered the motion, the opposing papers, and all evidence and
other matters presented to the Court, hereby GRANTS Electronic Arts Inc.s Motion to Strike and
STRIKES the Counterclaim filed by Zynga, Inc.
Electronic Arts Inc. shall be entitled to recover its attorneys fees and costs in accordance
with California Code of Civil Procedure 425.16(c)(1). Electronic Arts Inc. shall file its motion
for attorneys fees, including supporting declarations, within fourteen (14) days following the date
of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
HONORABLE SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
Case3:12-cv-04099-SI Document30-2 Filed10/26/12 Page2 of 2