Robbins v. PlushCare, Inc.

Background

Sarah Robbins brought an amended complaint asserting eight causes of action against PlushCare, Inc. and PlushCare of California, Inc., A.P.C., which the opinion collectively calls “PlushCare.” PlushCare moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

The claims concerned alleged problems with the presentation and operation of PlushCare’s automatic membership-fee renewal terms and related payments. The opinion addressed the following claims:

- The Second Cause of Action alleged that PlushCare violated California Business and Professions Code section 17200 through unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent practices. - The Fifth Cause of Action alleged violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. - The Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Causes of Action alleged negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, false advertising, theft, and conversion. - The First Cause of Action alleged violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, including failure to obtain clear written authorization for transfers and failure to provide a copy of the authorization.

Analysis and Rulings

The court held that the Second Cause of Action could proceed insofar as it was based on allegedly unlawful or unfair conduct. Robbins sufficiently alleged a violation of California’s Automatic Renewal Law because the automatic-renewal offer terms on PlushCare’s website allegedly were not visually near the request for consent.

The court dismissed the fraud-based portion of the Second Cause of Action. Robbins did not sufficiently allege that the automatic-renewal terms or other website language contained a material misrepresentation or nondisclosure, or that she relied on one to her detriment.

For the same reasons, the Fifth Cause of Action could proceed to the extent it was based on an Automatic Renewal Law violation, but was subject to dismissal to the extent it was based on allegedly fraudulent representations or omissions.

The court did not dismiss the Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, or Eighth Causes of Action. PlushCare’s only stated ground for dismissing those claims was that they were derivative of an inadequately pleaded Automatic Renewal Law violation, and the court found Robbins’s Automatic Renewal Law allegations adequate.

The court also did not dismiss the First Cause of Action. Robbins sufficiently alleged that PlushCare did not obtain valid authorization to transfer money from her bank account through her debit card because the payment terms allegedly were not clear. She also sufficiently alleged that PlushCare failed to provide her with a copy of any written authorization. The court rejected PlushCare’s contention that the cited webpages constituted such written authorization, noting that the webpages did not include the alleged authorization.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states that PlushCare’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The motion was granted to the extent the Second and Fifth Causes of Action were based on fraudulent representations or omissions, and was denied in all other respects.

The court gave Robbins until November 12, 2021, to file a Second Amended Complaint to cure the identified deficiency. If she did not amend, the action would proceed on the remaining claims in the First Amended Complaint, with Robbins required to file a corrected version of that pleading by the same date. PlushCare was required to respond within 21 days after Robbins filed the operative pleading.