Chen v. PayPal, Inc.
Decision Date | 02 March 2021 |
Docket Number | A158118 |
Citation | 275 Cal.Rptr.3d 767,61 Cal.App.5th 559 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Theo CHEN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. PAYPAL, INC., Defendant and Respondent. |
Attorney for Plaintiff and Appellant Theo Chen: Law Offices of Anthony A, Ferrigno, Anthony A. Ferrigno, Walnut Creek; Franklin & Franklin APC, J. David Franklin.
Attorney for Defendant and Respondent PayPal, Inc.: Cooley LLP, Max A. Bernstein, Whitty Somvichian, San Francisco.
This appeal arises out of a putative class action brought against respondent PayPal, Inc. (PayPal) and eBay, Inc. (eBay) by a group of users of their services (appellants).1 The action challenges various provisions of PayPal's and eBay's respective user agreements, including, as to PayPal, its risk-based-holds and reserves provisions, its interest-on-pooled-accounts provision, and its 180-day buyer protection policy. PayPal demurred to appellants’ second amended complaint, and the trial court sustained it without leave to amend as to eight causes of action. Appellants dismissed the remaining two causes of action against PayPal, the court entered a stipulated judgment for PayPal, and appellants now appeal. We conclude the trial court properly sustained the demurrer and did not abuse its discretion in doing so without leave to amend. We thus affirm.
PayPal provides online payment services for individuals and businesses. As appellants allege, PayPal "enables users to send and receive payments online and across various locations, currencies, and languages through credit cards, bank accounts, promotional financing, and store balances, without sharing financial information."
Appellants are 10 California residents who sell goods on eBay, an online marketplace, as part of their online businesses and use PayPal to receive payments for many of their sales.2
This action began on August 5, 2015, when appellants filed their initial complaint, which was removed to federal court and subsequently remanded. That complaint was followed on October 11, 2016, by a first amended complaint, a putative class action naming PayPal and eBay as defendants and seeking "damages, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, and an accounting."
On November 15, 2016, PayPal demurred to the first amended complaint. The trial court issued a tentative ruling sustaining the demurrer in its entirety and granting appellants leave to amend. Appellants did not contest the tentative ruling, which became the order of the court.
Appellants filed a second amended complaint (SAC), again a putative class action against PayPal and eBay. It alleges 23 causes of action, 13 of which are alleged only as to eBay and are irrelevant to the issues before us. It alleges seven causes of action only as to PayPal: breach of contract with respect to holds (third cause of action); breach of fiduciary duty regarding holds (fourth cause of action); breach of fiduciary duty for conversion of interest (fifth cause of action); unconscionable contract provisions regarding interest on pooled bank accounts (sixth cause of action); declaratory and injunctive relief regarding unconscionable contract provision or policy (eighteenth cause of action); unlawful business practices (twenty-first cause of action); and violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) ( ). And it alleges three causes of action as to both PayPal and eBay: breach of contract regarding seller protection (first cause of action); aiding and abetting buyers in defrauding sellers (nineteenth cause of action); and accounting (twenty-third cause of action).
The SAC appends 32 exhibits, one of which—Exhibit A—is the PayPal user agreement in effect as of May 1, 2012. According to the SAC, the May 1, 2012 agreement was the contract in effect 3
PayPal again demurred, as did eBay.
On August 16, 2017, the trial court heard argument on the demurrers.4 That same day, the court entered separate orders sustaining the demurrers in part. The order as to PayPal ruled as follows:
The court then overruled the demurrer as to the first and twenty-third causes of action, and sustained it as to the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-second causes of action, doing so without leave to amend because appellants "have been given ample opportunities to amend to allege sufficient facts to state these causes of action and have failed to do so ...."
Appellants petitioned for a writ of mandate challenging the trial court's order. We summarily denied the petition on November 13, 2017. (No. A152595.)
On July 11, 2019, appellants moved to dismiss the first and twenty-third causes of action against PayPal. The trial court granted the motion, and on August 12, pursuant to a stipulated request for entry of judgment, it entered judgment in favor of PayPal, with the parties to bear their own costs.
This timely appeal followed.
The standard of review governing an appeal from a demurrer sustained without leave to amend is well established. As we summarized in Chiatello v. City and County of San Francisco (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 472, 480, 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 169 : " ‘ ’ " (Accord, O'Grady v. Merchant Exchange Productions, Inc. (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 771, 776–777, 254 Cal.Rptr.3d 494.)
As noted, the focal point of the claims against PayPal is its user agreement (user agreement or agreement). As alleged in the SAC, in order to accept payments via PayPal for the sale of goods on eBay, each appellant The eight causes of action at issue here take exception with various provisions of the user agreement and can be divided...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
George v. eBay, Inc.
...PayPal. Plaintiffs appealed, and on March 2, 2021, we filed our published opinion affirming the judgment: Chen v. PayPal, Inc. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 559, 275 Cal.Rptr.3d 767 ( PayPal ). So, PayPal is no longer a party in the case. The Second Appeal: Denial of Class CertificationIn May 2019,......
-
George v. Ebay, Inc.
...PayPal. Plaintiffs appealed, and on March 2, 2021, we filed our published opinion affirming the judgment: Chen v. PayPal, Inc. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 559, 275 Cal.Rptr.3d 767 ( PayPal ). So, PayPal is no longer a party in the case. The Second Appeal: Denial of Class CertificationIn May 2019,......
-
King v. Facebook, Inc.
...Service did not include language providing that Facebook had "sole discretion" to act. Compare, e.g. , Chen v. PayPal, Inc. , 61 Cal. App. 5th 559, 570-71, 275 Cal.Rptr.3d 767 (2021) (noting that contract provisions allowed "PayPal to place a hold on a payment or on a certain amount in a se......
-
Sunfarms, LLC v. Eurus Energy Am. Corp.
...... leave to amend; Defendant Toyota Tsusho America, Inc.'s. (“TTA”) motion for summary judgment and motion to. strike; and Plaintiffs Mitch ... that a temporary permit was unacceptable - was objectively. reasonable. Chen v. PayPal, Inc. , 61 Cal.App. 5th. 559, 574 (2021) (“where an agreement gives a party. ......
-
Legal theories & defenses
...Whitaker v. Tesla Motors, Inc. (2021) 985 F. 3d 1173; Foster v. Sexton (2021) 61 Cal. App. 5th 998; Chen v. PayPal, Inc. (2021) 61 Cal. App. 5th 559; Code of Civil Procedure §430.10(e). §24:40 RELATED MATTERS 1. Collateral Estoppel precludes re-litigation of issues when the identical issue ......
-
2021 Commercial Law Developments
...Badie v. Bank of America, 67 Cal. App. 4th 779 (Ct. App. 1998)). A right to opt out is a factor to be considered.Chen v. PayPal, 61 Cal. App. 5th 559 (Ct. App. 2021) - Consideration for a contract is viewed as a whole under the contract and not on a service by service basis. A party must pe......