Ortiz v. Deckers Outdoor Corp.
- Lin
- 3:25-cv-09631
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Ortiz v. Deckers, Judge Lin granted Deckers’s dismissal motion in part, dismissing unjust enrichment with prejudice and without leave to amend, while denying it otherwise.
Jose Ortiz and Laura Willis Albrigo may proceed with the claims that the court did not dismiss, while their unjust-enrichment claim is dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. Deckers Outdoor Corp.’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in all other respects; its motion to stay and request for judicial notice were denied as moot.
What happened
Jose Ortiz and Laura Willis Albrigo brought six claims against Deckers Outdoor Corp. in an amended complaint. Deckers asked the court to dismiss the claims, arguing that the amended allegations remained insufficient.
The court ruled that the new allegations adequately supported the fraud and wiretapping claims, including allegations about Deckers’s knowledge of falsity and real-time data transmission. The invasion-of-privacy and pen-register claims also survived. The court dismissed the unjust-enrichment claim with prejudice and without leave to amend.
Judge Rita F. Lin granted Deckers’s motion to dismiss in part and denied it in all other respects. She also denied Deckers’s motion to stay and request for judicial notice as moot.
The detailed version
- Ortiz v. Deckers Outdoor Corp. · No. 3:25-cv-09631
- Lin
- Aug. 31, 2026
Background
Plaintiffs Jose Ortiz and Laura Willis Albrigo reasserted six claims in their First Amended Complaint. Deckers Outdoor Corp. moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The opinion states that the unjust-enrichment claim had been left unchanged, while the plaintiffs had corrected the deficiencies identified in their earlier pleading.
Court’s analysis
The court held that the plaintiffs’ new allegations about Deckers’s knowledge of falsity and its transmission of data in real time were sufficient at the motion-to-dismiss stage to support the fraud and wiretapping claims. The court also found that Albrigo had supplied enough detailed allegations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), which requires fraud to be pleaded with particularity, regarding the Sanuk and Ugg websites. Although allegations concerning certain other websites were insufficient, the court concluded that the fraud claims as a whole had been pleaded sufficiently to proceed. The court said that factual issues about individual websites could be addressed later.
The court further held that the invasion-of-privacy and pen-register claims survived, relying on its reasoning in several prior cases.
Disposition
The court granted Deckers’s motion to dismiss in part and denied it in all other respects. Specifically, it granted the motion with prejudice and without leave to amend as to the unjust-enrichment claim. It denied as moot Deckers’s motion to stay and request for judicial notice. Judge Rita F. Lin issued the order on August 28, 2026.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.