Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 071310 FED9, 07-56171
|Docket Nº:||07-56171, 07-56292|
|Party Name:||CRAIG E. KLEFFMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. VONAGE HOLDINGS CORP., a New Jersey corporation; VONAGE AMERICA, INC., a wholly owned subsidiary; VONAGE MARKETING, INC., a wholly owned subsidiary, Defendants-Appellees. CRAIG E. KLEFFMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly sit|
|Judge Panel:||Before: SILVERMAN and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and CONLON, District Judge.|
|Case Date:||July 13, 2010|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted December 10, 2008 [**] Pasadena, California
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California No. CV-07-02406-GAF Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding
Craig E. Kleffman appeals dismissal of his putative class action for violation of California's anti-spam law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17529.5(a)(2), against Vonage Holdings Corp., Vonage America, Inc., and Vonage Marketing, Inc. ("Vonage"), and denial of leave to amend his complaint to add an unfair competition claim for injunctive relief under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203. Vonage cross-appeals denial of its motion for attorneys' fees under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("Consumers Act"), Cal. Civ. Code § 1780(d) (now § 1780(e)). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review dismissal of Kleffman's complaint de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). Denial of leave to amend the complaint and denial of Vonage's request for attorneys' fees are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir. 2006); Levald, Inc. v. City of Palm Desert, 998 F.2d 680, 691 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
Kleffman alleged Vonage violated § 17529.5(a)(2) by sending him eleven unsolicited e-mail advertisements for its broadband telephone services from eleven different domain names to bypass spam filters. The anti-spam law prohibits e-mail advertisements containing or accompanied by falsified, misrepresented, or forged header information. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17529.5(a)(2). In light of California's anti-spam...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP