paint-brush
Programmers Have Advanced an 'Unjust Enrichment Claim' Against GitHubby@legalpdf

Programmers Have Advanced an 'Unjust Enrichment Claim' Against GitHub

by Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases
Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases HackerNoon profile picture

Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases

@legalpdf

Legal PDFs of important tech court cases are far too...

September 22nd, 2023
Read on Terminal Reader
Read this story in a terminal
Print this story
Read this story w/o Javascript
Read this story w/o Javascript
tldt arrow

Too Long; Didn't Read

Plaintiffs purport to advance an unjust enrichment claim against GitHub (Count VI), but “there is no cause of action in California for unjust enrichment.”

People Mentioned

Mention Thumbnail

@legalpdf

featured image - Programmers Have Advanced an 'Unjust Enrichment Claim' Against GitHub
1x
Read by Dr. One voice-avatar

Listen to this story

Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases HackerNoon profile picture
Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases

Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases

@legalpdf

Legal PDFs of important tech court cases are far too inaccessible for the average reader... until now.

About @legalpdf
LEARN MORE ABOUT @LEGALPDF'S
EXPERTISE AND PLACE ON THE INTERNET.

Github Motion to dismiss Court Filing, retrieved on January 26, 2023 is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 25 of 26.

ARGUMENT

VII. PLAINTIFFS’ UNJUST ENRICHMENT, CONSPIRACY, AND DECLARATORY RELIEF ALLEGATIONS FAIL ALONG WITH THE UNDERLYING CLAIMS.


Plaintiffs purport to advance an unjust enrichment claim against GitHub (Count VI), but “there is no cause of action in California for unjust enrichment.” Melchior v. New Line Prods., Inc., 106 Cal. App. 4th 779, 793 (2003); Bosinger v. Belden CDT, Inc., 358 F. App’x 812, 815 (9th Cir. 2009). Nor is civil conspiracy (Count XI) a cause of action under California law. Applied Equip. Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd., 7 Cal. 4th 503, 514 (1994).


Plaintiffs’ declaratory relief claim (Count XII) rests on the viability of underlying claims, and should be dismissed along with them. Count XII also runs afoul of Article III because the Complaint does not set forth a specific requested declaration, let alone make allegations demonstrating an injury that would be redressed by a declaration. See Part I, supra; Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561; see Hobbs v. Sprague, 87 F. Supp. 2d 1007, 1012 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (no standing where Complaint fails to show that an alleged injury would be redressed by a favorable decision).



Continue Reading Here.


About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.


This court case 4:22-cv-06823-JST retrieved on September 11, 2023, from documentcloud.org is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction.


L O A D I N G
. . . comments & more!

About Author

Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases HackerNoon profile picture
Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases@legalpdf
Legal PDFs of important tech court cases are far too inaccessible for the average reader... until now.

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN...

Arweave
Read on Terminal Reader
Read this story in a terminal
 Terminal
Read this story w/o Javascript
Read this story w/o Javascript
 Lite
Devurls
Freshnews
Freshnews
Anythingmachine

Mentioned in this story

profiles
X REMOVE AD