DOE v. GITHUB Court Filing, retrieved on January 26, 2023 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 12 of 21. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IV. ARGUMENT C. Plaintiffs’ Claims Fail for Reasons Specific to Each Claim. 2. Plaintiffs’ Breach of Contract Claim Fails. To state a claim for breach of contract under California law, a plaintiff must “plead the contract, plaintiff’s performance (or excuse for nonperformance), defendant’s breach, and damage to plaintiff therefrom.” Low v. LinkedIn Corp., 900 F. Supp. 2d 1010, 1028 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (cleaned up). When asserting written contract claims, a plaintiff must “allege the specific provisions in the contract creating the obligation the defendant is said to have breached.” Young v. Facebook, Inc., 790 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1117 (N.D. Cal. 2011). Here, Plaintiffs have not adequately pled the existence of a contract between themselves and any of the OpenAI Entities or sufficient factual detail supporting that OpenAI Entities allegedly breached any such agreement. a. Plaintiffs Have Not Sufficiently Pled Existence of a Contract. Plaintiffs have not adequately pled facts demonstrating the existence of a contract between Plaintiffs and any OpenAI Entity. See CSI Elec. Contractors, Inc. v. Zimmer Am. Corp., No. CV 12-10876-CAS (AJWx), 2013 WL 1249021, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2013) (granting motion to dismiss breach of contract claim because complaint failed to adequately allege existence of a contract). Here, the complaint merely alleges that “Plaintiffs . . . offer code under various [unspecified] Licenses” and attaches a sampling of the most common licenses in an appendix. (Compl. ¶ 173, App. A.) The complaint then alleges that contracts have been formed with Defendants, collectively, based on their use of code subject to certain licenses. (Id. ¶ 175.) However, the complaint does not indicate which licenses are at issue or which provisions the OpenAI Entities allegedly breached. These vague and conclusory allegations are insufficient to establish the existence of a contract. See Ramirez v. GMAC Mortg., No. CV 09-8189 PSG (FFMx), 2010 WL 148167, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2010) (holding plaintiff failed to plead existence of a contract where it did not “set forth [the] terms of the contract that Defendants’ conduct is alleged to have breached”). b. Plaintiffs Fail to Allege Facts Demonstrating the Contractual Provisions OpenAI Entities Allegedly Breached. While Plaintiffs allege generally that OpenAI breached open source licenses by failing to (i) provide attribution, (ii) include copyright notices, and (iii) identify the license applicable to the work (Compl. ¶¶ 181-183), the complaint fails to identify the particular terms of the alleged agreements that the OpenAI Entities purportedly violated. See, e.g., Zepeda v. PayPal, Inc., 777 F. Supp. 2d 1215, 1220 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (dismissing contract claim in part because plaintiffs failed to identify any provision in PayPal’s user agreement which prohibited PayPal’s conduct). “Facts alleging a breach, like all essential elements of a breach of contract cause of action, must be pleaded with specificity.” Rubio v. U.S. Bank N.A., No. C 13-05752 LB, 2014 WL 1318631, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2014) (cleaned up); see also Sutherland v. Francis, No. 12-CV-05110-LHK, 2014 WL 879697, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2014) (dismissing contract claim that did not include “the essential terms of the agreement and more specific allegations as to breach”). Plaintiffs’ generic allegations fail to satisfy this requirement. 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 8, 2023, from 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. DocumentCloud.org

The Allegations Against OpenAI Are Too Vague to Hold Water: OpenAI Lawsuit Details

The DMCA Claims Against OpenAI Should Be Dismissed: Here's Why They Do Not Apply 

Too Long; Didn't Read

Boost your HackerNoon story @ $159.99! 🚀

OpenAI Did Not Breach Any Contract: The Company Alleges There Was No Contract to Begin With

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

20% of All General Searches in the U.S. Go Through the Default on User-Downloaded Version of Chrome

Details of the OpenAI Lawsuit: The Plaintiffs' Fail to Plead a Violation of the CCPA

DOE v. Github: Original Complaint Pertaining to Copyright Infringement, Open Source Licenses & More

OpenAI: A Hunch Does Not Justify Jurisdictional Discovery

OpenAI Argues That the Plaintiffs' 1202 Claim Should Be Dismissed

OpenAI Believes Its Lawsuit Should Be Thrown Out for Failure to State a Claim Under Rule

20% of All General Searches in the U.S. Go Through the Default on User-Downloaded Version of Chrome

Details of the OpenAI Lawsuit: The Plaintiffs' Fail to Plead a Violation of the CCPA

DOE v. Github: Original Complaint Pertaining to Copyright Infringement, Open Source Licenses & More

OpenAI: A Hunch Does Not Justify Jurisdictional Discovery

OpenAI Argues That the Plaintiffs' 1202 Claim Should Be Dismissed

OpenAI Believes Its Lawsuit Should Be Thrown Out for Failure to State a Claim Under Rule

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps