Richter v. Oracle Am.
| Decision Date | 31 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | 22-cv-04795-BLF |
| Parties | HAONING RICHTER, Plaintiff, v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS [Re: ECF No 23]
Plaintiff Haoning Richter filed suit in state court against her previous employer, Defendant Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”), following her termination. The case was compelled to arbitration. Plaintiff filed in state court to stay the arbitration pending appeal. She was unsuccessful. Plaintiff sought review of the order compelling arbitration again in state court. She was again unsuccessful. After several discovery disputes in the arbitral proceeding Plaintiff filed an ex parte application in state court to enjoin the arbitral proceeding. Yet again, Plaintiff was unsuccessful. Having failed to obtain her desired results in state court, Plaintiff filed the instant action in federal court.
Now before the Court is Oracle's motion to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). See ECF No. 23 (“MTD”); see also ECF No. 27 (“Reply”). Richter opposes the motion. ECF No. 26 (“Opp.”). For the following reasons, Oracle's motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Plaintiff filed suit against Oracle on October 29, 2018 in Santa Clara County Superior Court. ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶ 147. The state court determined that Richter was bound by an arbitration agreement and, on May 3, 2019, it transferred all claims except those brought under the Private Attorney General Act to a JAMS arbitral proceeding. Id. ¶¶ 148-150, Ex. C (“Arbitration Agreement); see ECF No. 24 (“RJN”) Ex. C (May 2019 state court order). Plaintiff's petitions for review of the superior court order were denied by the Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court. RJN Exs. D, E.
The Arbitration Agreement states, in relevant part:
Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate
See Compl. Ex. C. Also relevant to this matter is a Proprietary Information Agreement (“PIA”) that Richter and Oracle signed as part of her employment. See Compl. Ex. A. The PIA provides that “any legal action or proceeding involving Oracle which is in any way connected with this agreement may be instituted in federal court in San Francisco or San Jose, California or state court in San Mateo County or Santa Clara County, California.” Compl. Ex. A ¶ 12.
On November 3, 2020, Oracle propounded its first set of Requests for Production of Documents (“RFP”), including RFP No. 2, which sought:
Any and all DOCUMENTS that YOU retained or kept in YOUR possession from YOUR employment at ORACLE ....
Compl. ¶ 158. On December 15, 2020, Richter responded to the RFP. Id. ¶ 159.
During her September 17, 2021 deposition, Richter stated that after learning her employment would be terminated, she had kept Oracle-related documents on her personal computer. Compl. ¶ 163. On a September 20, 2021 conference call with the parties and the arbitrator, Oracle stated that Richter had violated the PIA and may have, as a result, violated federal law. Id. ¶ 165. Based on the deposition, on September 21, 2021, Oracle brought a motion for forensic examination of Richter's personal laptop. Id. ¶ 167. Oracle asserted that Richter had violated the PIA. Id. ¶ 167. The arbitrator set a hearing on September 29, 2021. Id. ¶ 169. The arbitrator granted the request on September 30, 2021. Id. ¶ 174.
Also on September 29, 2021, Richter filed an ex parte application in Santa Clara County Superior Court for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to enjoin the impoundment of her personal computer and to enjoin the arbitral proceeding. Compl. ¶ 173. In her ex parte application, Plaintiff argued she would likely prevail on her claim that she was contractually entitled to litigate all her claims pending in the JAMS proceeding in the Santa Clara Superior Court on the basis that the PIA permitted her to submit all of her claims in court and that the balance of equities heavily favored her because she would be “compelled to participate in a futile arbitration” and that any forensic examination ordered by the Arbitrator would invade her privacy. See RJN Ex. F. Oracle opposed the application. See id. Ex. G. The court denied this application on October 4, 2021. Compl. ¶ 177; See RJN Ex. H (October 2021 state court order).
In the arbitration proceeding, on October 7, 2021, Oracle disclosed that it had possession of Richter's work computer. Compl. ¶ 180. Given various discovery issues, the arbitrator vacated the October 2021 hearing dates. Id. ¶ 184. Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions against Oracle on the basis of documents she discovered on the work computer that allegedly were not handed over in discovery. Id. ¶¶ 185-186. In opposition, Oracle asserted that Richter had unclean hands, as her actions in withholding her personal computer had violated the PIA. Id. ¶¶ 187-188. In Reply, Richter asserted that she had the legal right under the PIA to litigate PIA-related issues in a judicial forum. Id. ¶ 190. The arbitrator issued an order on June 30, 2022 stating, among other things, that Richter's “copying and retention of Oracle documents” was “improper.” Id. ¶ 192.
On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed her Complaint in this case in federal court. See Compl. The Complaint has eight causes of action. See generally id. The first cause of action is for declaratory relief seeking “a judicial declaration that [Richter] has the contractual right to litigate, in this Court, (a) the legal issue of whether or not she can be held liable under the PIA, and (b) all of her pending legal claims in the Arbitral Proceeding. Id. ¶¶ 193-195. The remaining causes of action are all identical to causes of action brought by Plaintiff in her state court action. See Compl. ¶¶ 196-235; RJN Ex. A (state court complaint).
On September 26, 2022, Oracle filed the instant motion to dismiss. See MTD.
Oracle filed a Request for Judicial Notice in support of its Opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction. ECF No. 24 (“RJN”). Defendant seeks judicial notice of ten exhibits, all of which are documents from the state court and arbitration proceedings between these parties. RJN at 1; see Haoning Richter v. Oracle America, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-cv-337194 (Santa Clara Superior Court). Plaintiff opposes the request. See Opp. at 28-29.
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, a court may take judicial notice of “matters of public record.” Reyn's Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006). A court may not take judicial notice of a fact that is “subject to reasonable dispute.” Fed.R.Evid. 201(b). Public records, including judgments and other court documents, are proper subjects of judicial notice. See, e.g., United States v. Black, 482 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007). Rulings in an arbitration are also proper subjects of judicial notice. See Rachford v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l, 284 Fed.Appx. 473, 475 (9th Cir. 2008).
Richter opposes the request on the basis that Oracle failed to authenticate the documents, provide a list of the documents, or identify the purpose for which the documents are offered or the facts for which judicial notice is requested. Opp. at 28-29. The authenticity of the documents is not in dispute. Further, Richter refers to many of these documents in her Complaint and briefing on the motion, and she has filed several of the same documents as exhibits to a declaration from her attorney, submitted in conjunction with her opposition to this motion. See ECF No. 26-1.
Defendant requests judicial notice of filings and orders in proceedings involving the parties in state court and arbitration, which are properly subject to judicial notice. See RJN. The Court GRANTS Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice.
“A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted ‘tests the legal sufficiency of a claim.'” Conservation Force v. Salazar 646 F.3d 1240, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001)). When determining whether a claim has been stated, the Court accepts as true all well-pled factual allegations and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Reese v. BP Expl. (Alaska) Inc., 643 F.3d 681, 690 (9th Cir. 2011). However, the Court need not “accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice” or “allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, it “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible when it “allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial