Garrison v. Oracle Corp.
| Decision Date | 02 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 14-CV-04592-LHK |
| Parties | Greg Garrison, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oracle Corporation, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Bonny E. Sweeney, Christopher L. Lebsock, Melinda R. Coolidge, Michael D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld LLP, San Francisco, CA, Braden Alexander Beard, Washington, DC, Bryce Aaron Dodds, Tyler Jay Belong, Jeffrey Lee Hogue, Hogue & Belong, David Roger Markham, Janine Renee Menhennet, Maggie K. Realin, Peggy J. Reali, The Markham Law Firm, Debra Hurst, Julie Corbo-Ridley, Kyle Mark Van Dyke, Hurst And Hurst, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Daniel Murray Wall, Sarah Meyers Ray, Jesse Mckeithen, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA, Elyse Miriam Greenwald, Boston, MA, Deborah Kay Miller, James C. Maroulis, Oracle USA, Inc. Legal Department, Dorian Estelle Daley, Redwood City, CA, for Defendant.
LUCY H. KOH
Plaintiffs Greg Garrison (“Garrison”), Deborah Van Vorst (“Van Vorst”), and Sastry Hari (“Hari”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this putative class action against Defendant Oracle Corporation (“Oracle”) for alleged violations of federal and California antitrust laws. ECF No. 105 (Second Amended Complaint, or “SAC”).1 Before the Court is Oracle's motion to dismiss. ECF No. 110. Having considered the parties' submissions, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court hereby GRANTS Oracle's motion to dismiss with prejudice.
Oracle is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Redwood Shores, California. SAC ¶ 22. The world's second-largest software producer by revenue, Oracle specializes in developing and marketing computer hardware systems and enterprise software products, including its own brands of database management systems. Id. ¶ 23.
Plaintiffs are former employees of Oracle. Id. ¶¶ 16, 18, 20. Garrison worked for Oracle as a senior account manager from “approximately December 2008 to June 2009.” Id. ¶¶ 16-17. Van Vorst worked for Oracle as a sales operations manager and business analyst from “approximately 2009 to August 2012.” Id. ¶¶ 18-19. Hari was a senior manager of quality assurance at Oracle from “approximately the middle of 2012 to November 2013.” Id. ¶¶ 20-21.
Plaintiffs seek to represent the following classes:
Here, Plaintiffs allege that Oracle conspired with Google, Inc. (“Google”), Intuit Inc. (“Intuit”), Adobe Systems, Inc. (“Adobe”), International Business Machines Corp. (“IBM”) and “various other technology companies,” as well as with non-technology based companies and recruiting companies, to fix and suppress employee compensation. SAC ¶¶ 2-3. As the factual and procedural history of In re High – Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation (“Hig h –Tec h ” )
, as well as the U.S. Department of Justice's (“DOJ”) investigations and complaints, are relevant to this action, the Court briefly summarizes the background of that litigation below. See SAC ¶¶ 48, 50-53 (discussing DOJ investigation).
From 2009 to 2010, DOJ's Antitrust Division investigated the employment and recruitment practices of various Silicon Valley technology companies, including Adobe, Apple Inc. (“Apple”), Intel Corp. (“Intel”), Intuit, and Google. See High – Tech, 856 F.Supp.2d 1103, 1109 (N.D.Cal.2012)
. DOJ filed its complaint against Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, and Pixar on September 24, 2010. Id. On December 21, 2010, DOJ filed another complaint against Lucasfilm Ltd. (“Lucasfilm”). See No. 11–2509, ECF No. 93-4. The defendants in these two lawsuits stipulated to proposed final judgments in which they agreed that DOJ's complaints had stated claims under federal antitrust law and agreed to be “enjoined from attempting to enter into, maintaining or enforcing any agreement with any other person or in any way refrain from...soliciting, cold calling, recruiting, or otherwise competing for employees of the other person.” High
–
Tech , 856 F.Supp.2d at 1109–10 (quoting Adobe Proposed Final Judgment at 5). The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered the stipulated proposed final judgments on March 17, 2011, and June 2, 2011, respectively. Id. at 1110.
Private plaintiffs filed five separate state court actions between May and July 2011. Following removal, transfer to San Jose to the undersigned judge, and consolidation as In re High – Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation
, the High
–
Tech plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on September 13, 2011. Id. at 1112–13. In their complaint, the High
–
Tech plaintiffs alleged antitrust claims against their employers, claiming that the defendants had conspired “to fix and suppress employee compensation and to restrict employee mobility.” Id. at 1108. More specifically, the High
–
Tech plaintiffs alleged a conspiracy comprised of “an interconnected web of express bilateral agreements.” Id. at 1110
. One such agreement, the “Do Not Cold Call” agreement, involved one company placing the names of another company's employees on a “Do Not Cold Call” list and instructing its recruiters not to cold call the employees of the other company. Id. In addition to the “Do Not Cold Call” agreements, the High
–
Tech plaintiffs alleged that Pixar and Lucasfilm entered into express, written agreements (1) not to cold call each other's employees; (2) to notify the other company whenever making an offer to an employee of the other company; and (3) not to engage in “bidding wars.” Id. at 1111.
plaintiffs publicly filed a number of documents in support of their supplemental motion for class certification. No. 11–2509, ECF Nos. 418, 428. One of those documents was an internal Google memo describing Google's hiring protocols and practices as of “1.7.2008.” No. 11–2509, ECF No. 428-10 at GOOG-HIGH-TECH-00059839. At one point, the Google memo refers to certain companies on the “ 'Restricted Hiring' list,” including Microsoft, Novell, Sun Microsystems, and, as relevant here, Oracle. Id. Although DOJ began investigating Oracle with the High
–
Tech defendants in 2009, DOJ concluded its investigation into Oracle without filing a lawsuit on October 29, 2014. SAC ¶ 53.
Plaintiffs allege a conspiracy among Oracle, other technology companies, the technology departments of non-technology-based companies, and recruiting companies “to fix and suppress employee compensation, and impose unlawful restrictions on employee mobility.” SAC ¶¶ 2-4, 9. As part of this conspiracy, Oracle allegedly entered into a series of anti-solicitation “Secret Agreements.” Id. ¶ 2. Other than the senior executives who “actively managed and enforced” the Secret Agreements, Oracle employees “were not apprised of any of these Secret Agreements and did not consent to this restriction on their mobility of employment.” Id. ¶¶ 34, 57.
Plaintiffs allege three types of Secret Agreements. First, Oracle allegedly established a “no hire” list, on which Oracle placed companies that entered into a reciprocal agreement with Oracle not to solicit each other's employees. Id. ¶¶ 26-27. Plaintiffs do not further define the terms of the “no hire” agreements, so it is unclear whether the “no hire” agreements alleged here include all of the activities alleged in High – Tech
: (1) not to cold call each other's employees, (2) to notify the other company whenever making an offer to an employee of the other company, and (3) not to engage in “bidding wars.” See
–
Second, Plaintiffs allege that Oracle formed “gentlemen's agreements” when the CEOs of “certain companies” would agree orally not to solicit one another's employees. SAC ¶ 6. According to Plaintiffs, “gentlemen's agreements” were often not added to the “no hire” list. Id. ¶ 31. Third, Plaintiffs allege a “Restricted Hiring Agreement” between Oracle and Google. Id. ¶ 5.The Restricted Hiring Agreement between Oracle and Google was the sole Secret Agreement alleged in Garrison's original complaint. See Garrison v. Oracle Corp., No. 14–CV–04592–LHK 2015 WL 1849517, at *2 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 22, 2015)
.
Now, the SAC specifically identifies the following Secret Agreements:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig.
...acts; and (3) the plaintiff acted diligently in trying to uncover the facts giving rise to his claim." Garrison v. Oracle Corp. , 159 F.Supp.3d 1044, 1073 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (alteration in original) (quoting Hexcel , 681 F.3d at 1060 ).Plaintiffs' allegations concerning fraudulent concealment......
-
PBTM LLC v. Football Nw., LLC
...with the plaintiff." David Orgell, Inc. v. Geary's Stores, Inc. , 640 F.2d 936 (9th Cir. 1981) ; see also Garrison v. Oracle Corporation , 159 F. Supp. 3d 1044 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (Hiring new employees and suppressing their salaries were not "new and independent acts" from the original anticom......
- Barajas v. City of Rohnert Park
-
City & Cnty. of S.F. v. Purdue Pharma L.P.
...fraud, including specific facts as to the defendant's alleged misrepresentations ...." Id. at 5 (citing Garrison v. Oracle Corp., 159 F. Supp. 3d 1044, 1075 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ). However, as the MDL court concluded, this oversimplifies the law. See In re Nat'l Prescription Opiate Litig., No. ......
-
Can A Broader Corporate Purpose Redress Inequality? The Stakeholder Approach Chimera.
...with their entering into non-poaching agreements whereby they agreed to not hire from each other. See, e.g., Garrison v. Oracle Corp., 159 F. Supp.3d 1044, 1053-55 (N.D. Cal. 2016); United States v. eBay, Inc., 968 F. Supp.2d 1030, 1033 (N.D. Cal. 2013); In re High-Tech Emp. Antitrust Litig......