Best Carpet Values, Inc. v. Google LLC

Background

Best Carpet Values, Inc. and Thomas D. Rutledge filed a class action against Google LLC in 2020. They alleged that Google placed unlawful advertisements on their websites and asserted California claims for implied-in-law contract and unjust enrichment, trespass to chattels, and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law. The district court previously granted Google’s motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, allowing all claims except the “unfair” portion of the Unfair Competition Law claim to proceed.

The district court certified that decision for an immediate appeal. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Google’s motion to dismiss and remanded with instructions to dismiss. The Ninth Circuit held that California law does not recognize a property interest in website copies sufficient to support a trespass-to-chattels claim. It also held that the implied-in-law contract and unjust-enrichment claim was preempted by federal copyright law. Because the remaining Unfair Competition Law claim depended on an underlying state or federal legal violation, and no predicate claim remained, the Ninth Circuit held that claim could not proceed.

Request to Amend

After the Ninth Circuit’s decision, the plaintiffs asked the district court to dismiss the existing case without prejudice and allow them to file an amended complaint asserting a new claim under the federal Copyright Act. The plaintiffs did not attach the proposed amended complaint, as required by the court’s local rule. The court nevertheless treated their filing as a motion for leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.

The court concluded that the Ninth Circuit’s instruction to dismiss, which did not specify otherwise, required dismissal with prejudice. It also concluded that adding a new copyright claim would amount to a major change in the case nearly four years after it began and after the appellate court had instructed the district court to dismiss all claims. The court noted that the Ninth Circuit had not decided that the existing complaint adequately pleaded a copyright claim. The court identified issues the plaintiffs might need to plead in a new case, including copyright ownership, protectable elements, substantial similarity, and a newly defined class.

Disposition

The court DISMISSED all of the plaintiffs’ claims WITH PREJUDICE. It DENIED the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint and instructed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The court stated that it had made no findings regarding a claim under the federal Copyright Act and that the plaintiffs were free to file a new action based on that theory.

Classification Note

This order primarily carried out the Ninth Circuit’s dismissal instruction and decided whether the plaintiffs could amend the closed case; it did not independently resolve a new underlying legal dispute. It is therefore classified as a procedural order.