Lynch v. Matterport, Inc
- William Alsup
- 3:22-cv-03704
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Lynch v. Matterport, Judge Alsup granted Matterport’s summary-judgment motion and allowed counsel to seek amendment identifying the proper plaintiff.
Shawn Lynch, I.C. Progress Inc., and Matterport, Inc.; the order also affects counsel seeking to amend the pleadings.
What happened
Shawn Lynch sued Matterport, Inc. The opinion says the case involved claims that had also been litigated in an earlier related action involving the same facts and counsel.
Lynch originally pursued four claims: violations of California’s Seller-Assisted Marketing Plan Act, California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500, and breach of the implied promise of good faith and fair dealing. Lynch withdrew the first three claims during briefing.
The court granted Matterport’s motion for summary judgment. Judge Alsup ruled that Lynch lacked standing to pursue the implied-covenant claim because the alleged economic injury belonged to I.C. Progress Inc.; he also ruled that California law did not impose the claimed duty on Matterport. Counsel may seek permission to amend the pleadings by December 4, 2023.
The detailed version
- Lynch v. Matterport, Inc · No. 3:22-cv-03704
- William Alsup
- Nov. 20, 2023
Background
Shawn Lynch brought this action against Matterport, Inc. The court described it as an attempted class-action “do-over,” with the same counsel asserting similar claims based on the same facts but with a different plaintiff. The court also stated that the claims remaining in this action had been litigated through summary judgment in an earlier related proceeding.
Claims and briefing
The defendant moved for summary judgment on four remaining claims: a claim under California’s Seller-Assisted Marketing Plan Act, claims under sections 17200 and 17500 of the California Business and Professions Code, and a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Lynch withdrew the first three claims in opposition briefing. Matterport argued in its reply that those withdrawn claims should be dismissed with prejudice.
Court’s analysis
As to the implied-covenant claim, the court stated that I.C. Progress Inc., rather than Lynch individually, should be the proper plaintiff. Because the alleged injury was purely economic and Lynch had not shown harm separate from I.C. Progress’s alleged lost profits, the court held that summary judgment was warranted for lack of standing.
The court also ruled on the merits that California’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing could not be interpreted to impose an affirmative duty not to compete for the same customers. The covenant could not add substantive duties beyond the specific terms of the parties’ agreement, and Lynch had not shown that the claimed duty existed in this case.
Disposition
The court granted Matterport’s motion for summary judgment and specifically granted summary judgment on the breach-of-implied-covenant claim. The court stated that judgment would be entered accordingly. Counsel may seek leave to amend the pleadings to identify the proper plaintiff, but must provide a sworn statement that I.-C. Progress is a corporation in good standing under New York law, both currently and historically, and explain how an amendment would cure the core issues discussed by the court. Any such motion was due by December 4, 2023. Judge William Alsup signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.