Freelancer International Pty Limited v. Upwork Global, Inc.
- Susan Illston
- 3:20-cv-06132
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Freelancer International v. Upwork, Judge Illston denied defendants’ motion to dismiss four claims, finding they were adequately pleaded.
Freelancer Technology Pty Limited and Freelancer International Pty Limited were allowed to proceed past the motion-to-dismiss stage on their counterfeiting, tortious-interference, California Anti-Phishing Act, and false-advertising claims. Upwork Inc. and Upwork Global Inc. did not obtain dismissal of those claims.
What happened
Freelancer International Pty Limited and Freelancer Technology Pty Limited sued Upwork Inc. and Upwork Global Inc. The complaint asserted ten causes of action, and defendants asked the court to dismiss four of them: counterfeiting, tortious interference with economic advantage, violation of California’s Anti-Phishing Act, and false advertising.
The court applied the standard for a motion to dismiss, which requires plaintiffs to allege enough facts to make their claims plausible. It denied defendants’ motion in its entirety, finding that the four challenged claims were adequately pleaded for purposes of surviving the motion. This ruling did not decide whether plaintiffs would ultimately win those claims.
Judge Susan Illston issued the order on November 9, 2021. The court noted that it had previously denied plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction and that the Ninth Circuit had affirmed that decision, but explained that the motion-to-dismiss standard was lower.
The detailed version
- Freelancer International Pty Limited v. Upwork Global, Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-06132
- Susan Illston
- Nov. 9, 2021
Background
Freelancer Technology Pty Limited and Freelancer International Pty Limited sued Upwork Inc. and Upwork Global Inc. The complaint asserted ten causes of action. Before this order, the court had denied plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction after finding that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits. A Ninth Circuit panel unanimously affirmed that ruling.
Defendants then moved under Rule 12(b)(6), the rule allowing dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legally recognizable claim. The motion challenged four causes of action: claim 1, counterfeiting; claim 8, tortious interference with economic advantage; claim 9, violation of California’s Anti-Phishing Act; and claim 10, false advertising.
Legal standard
For a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court assumes the complaint’s factual allegations are true and draws reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs’ favor. The plaintiffs must allege enough facts to make their requested relief plausible on its face. The court emphasized that this is a lower standard than the standard governing summary judgment. It also noted that case law was relatively sparse concerning several of the challenged claims, particularly the phishing claim.
Ruling
The court found that claims 1, 8, 9, and 10 were adequately pleaded for purposes of surviving a motion to dismiss. It therefore denied the motion in its entirety. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of those claims. The court entered the order on November 9, 2021, with Susan Illston signing as United States District Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.