Garza v. Alamo Intermediate II Holdings, LLC

Background

Daisy Garza brought claims against Alamo Intermediate II Holdings, LLC, under section 1799.3 of the California Civil Code and the federal Video Privacy Protection Act. The opinion addresses Alamo as a movie theater operator. The court stated that the motion to dismiss assumed familiarity with the facts, legal standard, and parties’ arguments, so the opinion does not provide those details.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Garza’s California statutory claim could not proceed because a movie theater operator does not provide “video recording sales or rental services.” The court noted that Garza acknowledged Alamo does not sell or rent movies to people who visit its theaters.

The court also dismissed the Video Privacy Protection Act claim. That statute covers a “video tape service provider,” and the court held that a movie theater operator like Alamo does not fit that definition. The court reasoned that Alamo does not rent or sell movies to moviegoers and does not “deliver” movies to them. It rejected Garza’s arguments that projecting a movie onto a theater screen amounts to sending or delivering the movie, or that “delivery” includes any business that provides access to audiovisual content.

Disposition

The court granted Alamo’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed both claims without leave to amend because, in the court’s view, the statutes do not cover what movie theaters typically do and no amendment could fix that problem. At the hearing, Garza’s counsel identified Alamo’s former streaming service as a possible basis for amendment, but acknowledged that Garza never used that service; the court noted that none of the alleged misconduct involved it.