IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT IDIVISION ONE]

DANIELL. BALSAM, and Respondent, Cross-Appellant. Plaintiff,

INC. era/, TRANCOS and Appellants. Cross-Respondents. Defendants,

CASE NOs. 4128485and A129458 (Superior Court No. CIV471797) Appeal from the SuperiorCourt of the Stateof California. of Courrty SanMateo,No. CIV471797 The l{onorableMarie S. Weiner,Judge

RBPLY TO CROSS-RESPONDENT'S CROSS.APPELLANT'S OPENNG BRIEF TO CROSS-APPELLANT'S OPPOSITION

Bar J. Timothy Walton(State No. 184292) OF LAW OFFICES TIMOTHYWALTON 207 Drive.Suite 9515Soquel CA Aptos. 95003 (831) 618-8687 Fax: 685-9800, (650) Phone L. Daniel Balsam and for Attorneys Respondent Cross-Appellant

TABLEOF CONTENTS
Page TAI}LE OF CONTENTS TAIILE OF AUTHORITIES ........ii """""""""'iii

REPLYTO BALS,\NI'S CROSS-APPELLANT INC.'S TRANCOS CROSS.DEFENDANT 1 BRIEF................................ OPENING TO OPPOSITION BALSANT'S
I. t o l n t r t - r d uie n . . . . . .

ll.

D i scu ssto n as Had No Affimative Defenses to the A. Trancos o C L R A C a u se f Action. of B. The Language theCLRA is Unambiguous. Tr a n di t Go e sA g ainst ancos to Has Standing Bringa ClLRACause C. Balsam of Action ViolatedtheCLRA in Multipie D. The Spams Wa,vs that to is E. An Injr-rnction Necessary Ensure TheirUnlau'fLr1 Do Defendants Not Resume Practices

"" "' - ) " """"- l . . . ' . . .o ' . . . . , .l.l

.. .18

III.

Jointll/ This Court ShouldHold llrian Nelson o S e v e r a l lL i a b l e n t h eJ u d g m e n t y to Trancos' Objectrons Balsam's NoteRegarding ....,.... a P a g e i ta ti o n s n dRefer r :nces C

..........l0

IV.

r1

TO OppOStrtoN T'O REPLY CROSS-RESpONnE\T'S CnOSS-AppELLANT!S BRMT' OPENING CROSS.APPEI-LANT'S

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page California Cases (-l'Hctul ofCali.fbnttaCompant' Aron t'.. - l t h1 9 6Q d D i s t .l 0 L ) 6 ) . . . . . ' . 1 4 3C a l .A p p . Ittc'. Pubii'shing, Berrt' t,.AmericanE.rpress l41Cal. App. 1th224(4thDist. 2007) Corp.. Sctellite t'. Atlt'ocates Echostar Constrmer i 1 3 C a l . A p p . - l1 3 5 1 ( l d D i s t . 2 0 0 3' ) . . th
Daugltertt'v. Anteric'an Hontla Motor Co.-

""""" 8 ""' -5 "11 ' " "" 1-l

""" -5 " "'1ttt'ssitrr .......pas'\tt/1 "" 19

C l -1 .1 a l .A p p ." l th8 2- l( 2d Dist.2006) ........

Fairbank.s t'. SnPerior Court.

- 1 6C a l . ' l t h 5 6 ( 2 0 0 9 ) . . . . . . Ht'pertouch Inc t,. ValueClick Inc. et ul. D 1 9 2C a l . A p p . 4 t h 8 0 5 ( 2 , J i s t .l 0 l 1 ) . . . (lorP. Holtlin,qs t'. Kle.iJman Vona,qe 4 9 C a l . 4 t h 3 3 - l( 2 0 1 0 ) M.7.. T'hornet'. Honcut Dretlgin,qCompat*'. . 1 3C a l . A p p . 2 d 1 3 1 ( 3 d D i s t ' 1 9 4 1 ) . . . . - . . Met'er v. Sprint SpectrumLLP. - 1 5 a l .. l t h 6 3 . 1 2 0 0 9 ) . . . . . ( C

.........1tcts.sitrr

Ford Co.. r'. i\,lel.soil Pearson D A p p .4 t h9 8 3t - l r h i s t .2 0 1 0 ) 1 8 6C a l .

Pectple v. Conu.'ct)',

1 2 C a LA p p . 3 d 8 7 5 ( 2d Dist. 197' t)
People v. Paci,ticktndrnark LLC. 1 2 9C a l . A p p . - l t h 1 2 0 3( . l dD i s t .2 0 0 5 ) . . , . . . . . . . Povt'ersr'. Pottery Bant lrtc'.. .... l1

( D l 1 1 1 a l A p p .- l t h1 0 3 9 , l t h i s t . t l 0 9 ) . . . . . . . . C .
Int'-. oJ'Cctl., Gerns t'. Sc'hnuer Manclarin ( 2 D 4 t h9 z t 9 . l t h i s t . 0 0 5 ) . . . . . . . . 1 2 5 a l .A p p . C Sevitlolr'. TorgetCorp.. D 9 1 8 9 a l .A p p . 4 t h 0 5( - l r h i s t 1 0 1 0 ) .. . C ProtlttctHormorteCuse.s. Steroicl ( 1 8 1C a l .A p p .4 t h 1 ' 1 5 2 r lD i s t .1 0 1 0 ) t'. W\,(ttt LinionMortg0geCo, et al.

. . . . . 1.0 .
....'.6.1 . . , .' . .1

2 1 C a l 3 d ' 7 1( 1 9 1 9 ) . 3

. . . . .I 1

iii TO OppOSrutoN TO REPLY CROSS-RnSpOxoENT'S CnOSS-AppELLANT'S BNITP OPBXTXC CROSS.APPEI,LANT'S

r TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont.

Page Federal Cases s t'. ,A.rtrturt:jatoeMachine Inc.. ( F " 1 0 2 . S u p p2 d 1 1 3 3 C D ' C a l ' 2 0 0 5 ). . . . . Doe I t'.AOL LLC. S N o C 0 6 - 5 8 6 6 B A .2 0 1 0U . S .D i s t 'L E X I S6 8 8 5 9 ( N . D . a i .J u n e 2 . 2 0 1 0 t . " . ' . . . . . . . . 2 C Media LLC. t'' FederalTratleCommission A./l'ordttbLe ( 9 r hC i r . 1 9 9 9 ) i 7 9 F . 3 d1 2 2 8 Sen'ice.s Laitllaw Ent'ironrnental Earth Irtc. v'. o.f'the Frientl,s (T OC )Irtc., 5 2 8U . S .1 6 t ( 1 9 9 9.). . . . . . HoldingsCorp.. t'. Kle.fftnan Vona,q,e 2007U.S.Dist.LEXIS 6 N o . C V 0 7 -2 ,J0GAF ( J\,\' Jx) . -1 0 4 8 (C .D .C a l .May 13. 2007 ( or der antinq 7 sr ) . t m o t i o n o c l i s m i s s.). . . . . . . . . . P v. Kov'alskt' Hev'lett- ackartlComparn', (N U . 2 0 1 1 . S D is t .L E X I S : 1 1 3 3 7 . D C a l .A p r . 1 5 .

' 1 0 '1 l

"""""" v . . ' . ' . ' . . 1.9 . .

.l0

"' 6. 13

1 201 )
Corp. et oL. l,lor,:lbergt'. TriLegictnt

1.')

. 1 4 F . S u p p2 d 1 0 8 2N . D C a l 2 0 0 6 t 5 ( . . .
i o tt n it etl States t'. Concent raretl P hosp hate E.rp rt Associ ctt cttt, 3 9 3 U . S . 1 9 9( 1 9 6 8 ) . . .. LtniretlStatesv. Kilbritle.

..'.'.....'.+
. . . 19

(g C l 5 8 ; F . 3 c1 2 - 1 0 t h i r .1 0 0 9 ) . . . . ....... . . t
(,lnitetlState.r Oregon StateMetlical Socien'. v.

. . . . . 1.l . . . . .1 9 .
7 ,

. 3 ; 1 U . S . 2 6( 1 9 5 2. ) . . . . . . 3 3
Von Grobev. SprintPCS. ( C . 3 1 2F . S u p p 2 d 1 2 8 5 S . D . a l .2 0 0 3 )

California Statutes.Rules of Court. and RelatedDocuments ( . 8. 1t) Lau' Cor npetition ) ....... Bu s.& P ro f.C o d e$ 1 7 2 00 Unfar r ( ...... 10 Law) Adver tisin,s Bu s.& P ro f.C o d e$ 1 7 5 00 False .'..'...'7ta'ssitrt . B u s .& P r o f .C o d e$ $ 1 7 5 2 91 1 5 2 9 . 5 . . . . 1 6 .1 7 . C B u s .& P r o f . o d e$ 1 7 5 3 8 . 5 ,....Pos' s tttt Act) . LegalRemedies C i v. C o d e$ 1 7 5 0e t se q .(Consumer s . . . .. . . l l C C o d e i v ,P r o c . - 1 7 3 S
lv

TO OPPOSITION TO REPLY CROSS.RTSPOXOENT'S Cnoss.ApPELLANT'S BNTNN S APPELLANT'OPENING CROSS.

Page

California Statutes.Rules of Clourt.and RelatedDocuments(cont.) 1 ..10.21 17 C o r p . C o d e $ $ 1 0 1 .7 1 5 8 . . . .....8 Pr o p o si ti o6 .tr 0 0 .1 ) n (2 . . . . . . . ... 1. . R u l e f C o u r8 . 2 1 6 ( b ) ( 2 i . . . . . . . . o t Federal Statutes ( 1 5U . S . C $ 7 7 0 1e t s e q . C A N - S P A M c t ) A . (dX4) CAN-SPAM ct) ( A an 1 8U . S . C$ 1 0 3 7 ( a X 2 ) d .
Other Authorities For'f,he Consurner:Art lrtsitler'.s JamesS. Reed.LegisLating Analysi.s o.t''the Consurner.s Legal RemetliesAc't.2

,....pa.ssim . . . . . . . . .i . . . 2

P a c r p rL . J .i ( l 9 l l ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c

Rnplv OpposrrroN To Cnoss-AppELLANT's ro CRoss-RnspoxnENT's

BRTEN S OPENING CROSS.APPELI,ANT'

and A129458 CASENOs.Al2E485

L. DANIEL BALSAN,I.
and Plaintiff.Respondent. Cross-Appellant

TRANCOS lNC. era/. Appellants.and Cross-Respondents Defendants.

CROSS.APPELLANT BALSAM'S REPLY TO CROSS. T RU S P ON D E N T R A N COS INC.' SOPPOSITIONTO BALSI\NI' S OPI,NING BRIEF

Court of the Stateof Califbrnia. On Appealfrom Ordersof the Superior No. CIV- 17 1797 of C o u n ty SanM ateo. Judge The Honorable Marie S. Weiner.

I. INTRODUCTION ("Balsarn") debated PlaintiffandCross-Appellant DanielL. Baisam whether file this ReplyBrief.trecause nothingin Defendant Crossand to Balsam' Respondent Trancos Inc.'s ("Trancos" Opposition undermines s ) rn of OpeningBrief. Nevertheless. an abundance caution.and to address knowingmrsstatements factsandlaw. Balsam chose file thrs to Trancos' of briefReply. matter. that Balsam not include As a preliminary Trancos objects did of mistakenl,va statement factsfor his Cross-Appeal (supposediy) and

TO OPPOSTTTON REPLY CROSS.RgSPONOENT'S TO CnOss-ApPELLANT'S OPTNNCBNITT CROSS.APPELI,ANT'S

of relieson the Statement factssettorth in his Opposition.Trancosis Ruleof Court8.216(bttll as incorrect a matterof law, California bnef . . . may inciudea single that"A combined states specificaliy did. so the facts," Thatis exactlywhat Balsam of summary the significant Brief Opposition/Opening \\'asproper. combined torm of Balsam's -fhe tvpesof to to standing consumers suefor varioits CLRA grants the of advertising.Undertheplain language the statute. misleading the is definitionof consumer nor limited to peoplewho actualiypurchase only goods (allege<ily) andservices thedefinition falselyadvertised In trom businesses. fact.theCLRA e.rpresslv consumers distinguishes of and intencleri resultin the saleor iease -eoods to to applies transacttons must heldthata consumer Courtrecently Supreme The California serl'ices, stated that and to damages havestanding, specificzrill' havesuffeledrznr, The California damages. thanpecuniary is ail,r'damagesbroader sparn of thatrecipients spam notjust unlar'vful conlirmed Legislature to Balsarn standing sueTrancosfor has Theretore. sufferdama-ges. w'hen receiled he wasdamaged Balsam violations the CLRA because of the el'enwititoutpurchasing soods/services sentby Trancos. spams in advertised the spams.It reallf is thatsimpie. reliefurtder the doesnot evenseekmonetarv Balsam Moreover. to doesnot r etur n its [o that C LR A . o n l y a n i n j u n cti o n ensur e Tr ancos thiit er en in utterfailureto concede uniawtulpractices the future. Tranctrs' w'ithr.lhich it and thingit did wasmisleading. thevehemence a sin-ele that an sLr-qgests it is opposes Balsarn's CLRA claimrequesting injunction. as highly likely that Trancosw'il/returnto unlarvfulspammin-e. soonas it (andwithout-setting caught againl, out canI'igure how to do so profitably thatllould onir' opposes injunction an It is quitetellingthatTrancos

To OpposlrtoN Rpprv ro CRoss-RespoNnENT's Cnoss-AppELLANT's

OPE\ING BNMT CROSS.APPELLANT'S

in preventit trom engaging unlawfuladvertising an injunctionthat sen'es Balsampersonally. far thepublic interest more thanit benefits Officer.testified ChiefExecutive Trancos' BrianNelson("Nelson"). unlawfulactions.The fact that involvedtn Trancos' thathe waspersonally him doesnot relieve otficerof Trancos he did so in hrsrole asa corporate officersmay not be iiablefor their liability. Corporate of personal officers.br-rt they arecorporate wrongful actsmerelybecause companies' wrongfulacts. Balsamdoesnot seek they are liablefor their o)r:/? to Nelson.but ratheronly seeks hoid hirn against additionalremedies Inc. jointly andseverally liablealongwith Trancos of favoron the CLRA cause ruie in Balsam's This Courtshould liableon thejudgmentfor his own andhold Brian Nelsonpersonally action. unlawfulactions.

u. p_ISCUSSION
as A. Trancos Had No Affirmatile Def'enses to the CLRA Causeot' Action that Trancos'First AmendedAnswerhad ti,''o It cannotbe disputed tar-qeted the.lir.sr to both of which wereexpressly affirmativedefenses. Appeilant' s of o fo c a u se f a cti o n r vi o l a ti ons Il&P Code$ I 7519.*5. ("AA") l:88-89. Defendants had an atfinnatir''e defense to never Appendix of cause actionfor vroiations theCLRA - i.e..thatBalsarn of thesecond or wasnot damaged, eventhatthespams that wasnot a conslrmer. Balsam did not violatethe CLRA. of defense theCLRA cause actionrr,as to As such. Trancos'entire in its improper. notwithstanding "law of thecase'argument rtsOpposition a r3 5 - 3 7 .

TO OPPOSITION REPLY CROSS.RNSPONNENT'S TO CnOSS.APPELLANT'S OPTXNCBNTET CROSS.APPELLANT'S

Against and of $,. The Lanzuage the CLRA is Unambiguous. It Goes Trancos of that statements thelanguage the with agrees Trancos' Balsam wrth agrees thelegalstandard thata and is CLR.A unambiguous. Balsam
is historyif the lan-uua-ue to courtonly needs look at the legislative at Opposition 34-35.39. ambiguous. Intended or 1. Seeks Acsuires anY Goodsor Services: irl of the Horvever, language theCLRA is unambiguous BaLsortt's or as The CLRA defines"consumer" "an individualwho seeks

fat,or.

family. tor goodsor services personal. rrn.t' or by acquires. purchase lease, ' fr ancos ( addedl' ' o r h o u se h o lp u rp o se s"C iv' Code$ 1761( d)emphasis d of the to is the partywho refuses accept plainlanguage the statute trying "seeks and acqutes"(i'e.. with "seeks oracquires" to rewriteit to replace "rlrtr'-eoods services" or and requirement), to replace a imposing purchase Nothing advertised." falsel,v allegedly goocls services or with "the .spec'ific Cttrpororiort.ll5 t'. related iVortllterg Trilegiant tct Opposition in Trancos' or the ch:r nges factthat"seeks acquir es" 2 F . S L rp p .d 1 0 8 2(N .D .C a I.2006) ianguage sufficient is part of thestatutory either so is ciisjunctive. satisfying to meetthe definitionof "consumer." applvto set the Moreover. prohibitions forth in the CLRA expressly to that suchas advertisements. are"intentled resultor which ffansactions. Civ. Code$ 1770(a) of or resultin the saleor lease goods services." "intended result"is to (emphasis of added).The inclusion thephrase Yet. Trancos requtrement. lvith a pr-rchase incompatible fundamentaily ro attempting forcea altogether. the ignores "intendedto result"phrase exist. that into requirement the statute simplydoesn't reliance

TO OPPOSTTION REPLYTO CROSS.RTSPOXOENT'S CnOSS.APPELLANT'S BNTNN OPENING CROSS.APPELLANT'S

2. Suffers any Damage may bring a damage" d/?r: who suffers Finally. "Any consumer (emphasis added).Trancos of CLRA cause action. Civ. CodeS 1780(a) i.e.. damages. a purchase monetary to wouldrewritethe statute require ignoresthe fact that the so. with no basisfor doin_e Trancos requirement. that the receiprof spamcauses tound anddeciared California Legislature ( e) does not B d a ma g e s.& P C o d e$ 1 7 529( d) . ,( g) ,( h) .evenif ther ecipient in advertised the spam. purchase goodsor services the c 3. Legislatinefor the ConsumerResolves mannerthat the statutorl' Trancos boldly claimsin a conciusory - in is language unambi-cluous its favor - but utterlyfails to provideanl Balsam's at thatclaim. Opposition 34-35. In contrast. analysis support to und of Brief andthisRepiylook at theplainlanguage the statute Opening is that facts. Balsam alsomaintains the lansuase applyit to the rnstant it aboutthe language. are unambiguous. sincetheParties now arguing but somearnbiguitl,'. to that appears Trancosis attempting manufacture and to the extentthat this Court might find an-'For that reason. properl;'refers James Reed. Balsarn to S. in ambiguity the language. '.r'Analr'.ri.r o.fthe Cottsunter.s ,\n F Legi.slating or The Con,stuner: In.sitler have whichcourts LesalRemetlies Act.2 Pectrtc L.J. I (1911), intentbehind as is source to the legislatrve acknowledged an authoritative . r, Court.-16 Cal.-lth 56. 61 theCLRA. Seee.g.Fairbctnks Superior ( 2 00 9 t: e rn 't'.A rn e ri cctn pr e,ss Ir tc..l- 17 B E.r Publi.slting, Cal.App.- lth32- 1. 1 30r..l th i st.2 0 0 7 ). D Legislating For TheCons'umer notes x8 thattheCLRA mustbe at to and liberallyinterpreted protectconsumers. if thereis anv doubtrn the courts ln interpretation application, or mustdecide consttnters' .fat'or.

TO OPPOSITTON REPLY CROSS.RPSPONNENT'S TO CnOSS.ApPELLANT'S BNTET S OPENtriG CROSS.APPELI-ANT'

also LegislatingFor The Cons'umer notesthat the Legisiature "all because the difficultiesin rejected tiaud requirement. a expressly the diminished law fraud fwouldhavel correspondingly provingcorrunon rejected a since Le-sislature the utriityof the statute."Id. at x12. Er-eo. canxotevadeliability underthe CLRA merelt' Trancos fraudrequirement. falsely did any Balsam not purchase of the goodsor services because advertised. C. Balsam Has Standine to Brins a CLRA Causeof Action to above. CLRA is designed protect the immediately As discussed goods falsely-advertised they are injuredby purchasing consumers , be.fore of pursuant the piain language the to andservices.Balsamls a consumer. even goods in and serr,'ices general. he or because seeks acquires definition. Trancos advertised. Code Cir'. the andservices if he did not acquire goods result intendetl theemailsit sentto Baisam that Trancos because N 1761(d). Civ. rn the saieof goodsandservices. Code$ 1770(a). L Trancos' Citation to Kleffman is Meritless BecauseKleffman M i sin t erp r et ed Schaue!

Brief.Trancos' Opening in As discussed moredetailin Balsam's GAF t'. LloLdings Corp..No. CV 07-2406 reliance Kle.ffinan Vonage on ( J W J x )2 0 0 7U . S .D i s t .L E X I S1 0 4 8 7 t * 1 1 ( C . D .C a l .M a y 2 3 .1 0 0 7 ) , a (ordergranting not decision on poirlt. an motionto dismiss), unpublished r, an)'thing ia a who doesnot purchase that a spamrecipient for the premise because underthe CLRA, is misplaced spamdoesnot havestanding \'. Scftauer tVantlarinGern.s Kle.'fJinan cameto its holdingby misinterpreting 960 ( .lthDist.2005 t. o f Ca l ,,In c..1 2 5C a l .A p p .- lth9.t9. the at Opposition 38 addresses fact thatthe Nothingin Trancos' underthe CLRA did courtheld that Schauer not havestanding Schauer

rO OppOStuOx REpLyTOCROSS-RnSpONoENT'S CnOSS-AppELLANT'S OPBNNCBRME CROSS-APPELLANT'S

at not the because atlyertisementw'as directetl her. but ratherat her fiance. the Similarly.in 2010.Set'idalv'.TargerCorp.reinJorced distinctionthat relieson. rvhenit held that and thatTrancos court missed. theKtqlfnuTr? they $'ere of could not bring a CLRA cause actionnot because conslrmers they did not re the not irrjured they were tnjured but ratherbecause f a l se a b e l s.1 8 9C a l .A p p ..lth905.929 ( :lthDist.l0l0) . Tr ancos' l the and tgnoresSetlit,ul, fails to address distinctionthat Schauer Opposition but messages. Kleffman and wasnot therecipientof the falseadvertising were. Balsam v. citation VonGrrtlte Spritt PC5.311 F. to aciditional Trancos' nothing at 1 Su p p .2 d1 2 8 5 , 3 0 3(S .D .Cal.1003)in its Opposition 38 adds definitionof the as to its clefense. Von Grabemerelyrepeats statutory "consumer." 2. Trancos Offers l,lo Arsument to Contradict Leeislati','e Findings that BalsamwqsDamasedbv ReceivinqTrancos' Soam. "Anv Damaqes"GivesBalsamStanding w Balsam as is question to standing whether as The only remaining ciaimsthatMet'et'r'.SprintSpec'trum Trancosmelodramatically clamaged. "sounds death s knell"for Baisar r i'CLRA the 6 L L P ,4 5 C a l ..{th 3 4 (2 0 0 9) from a at claim. Opposition 41. Quitethecontrarv.Met'erarose "preemptive" s/heltatl been complaintin which no one allegedthctt All tloma,qed. that theMet,eropiniondid wasrejectsuchpreemptive to artl holdingthata CLRA plaintiffmusthavesuffered damages lawsuits, it omitsr,l'hener,'er that Meler aisoheid.rn a Section Trancos havestandrng. thanpecuniary' is neveranaiyzes thatanl damages broader canancl . Id. damases. at 6r+0-,11

TO OPPOSITTON Cnoss.ApPELLANT'S REPLY TO CROSS.RTSPOIVOENT'S BNMT OPBNTXC CROSS.APPELI,ANT'S

with ,4ronv. U-Haul ComparnoJ CuliJontict, . Met'eris consistent a 64 which held that Proposrtion added "lost moneyor propert\'" underB&P Code$ 17200,but rrotfor standins for requirement standin-q l-13 arn'damages. Cal. App. -lth 796. underthe CLRA. which still required 8 0 2(2 d D i st.1 0 0 6 ). This is wherethe l'rial Courterredas a matterof fact and of iau'. that Balsam when rt stated The Triai Court erredas a matterof .t'act spamand that therecan be by no suffered damages receivingDefendants' ("RT" ) 70:I2-8'l:I I . Transcript Reporter's withouta purchase. no damages of foundthatthe receipt spamcauses Legislat.ure The California 344:2-9. eachvear,B&P Code to billionsof dollarsof damages Californians sincethen.as haveincreased and 5 17529(d). that wasin 2003. (Damages of'spam. amount andthe absolute of thepercentage emailthatis spam. just damages like thereceipt of The haveincreased.) receipt spamcauses junk mail sentpostage-due. telemarketrng to a paycalls and of junk faxes. ( . th) in p p e r-mi n u te l l u l a r h o n e .B&P Code$ 17529( e) - st. . Nothr ng ce point... this to evenattempts oppose indisputable Trancos' Opposition with no basisin factor iaw. thatBalsan.r asserts. merelvrepeatedlv Trancos should r c hir TheTr ial Ctr ur t its \ \ asn o t d a ma g e b y re e e i ving spam s.r d caused spamtfrom B&P by findings(asto thedamages Legislative applied to Codet 17529 the CLRA. for theCLRA

' To address at thatBalsam citescases point in its Opposition -l;1 Trancos' pointsout thatthe Balsam discussed. UCE is negatively in whichtleceptive is caused spams partof B&P by findingsas to the darlages Legislative * - referring spamin getteral andnot part of $ l7 529 .5 to Code$ 17529 In prohibits falseanddeceptire spamming. otherwords. thatspecificaily is a subset all spam. ol deceptive spam damages: a// spamcauses

TO OppOStrtON Rnply TO CROSS.RTSpOxoENT'S CnOSS.AppELLANT'S SOPNTNCBNNT CROSS-APPELI,ANT'

and shallbe liberaliyconstrued appliedto promoteits agalnst which areto protectconsumers underlyingpurposes, practices to provide and business unfair and deceptive procedures secure such to efficientand economical p ro te cti o n . C r v ,C o d e$ 1 7 6 0 . thatfor And the Trial Court erredas a matterof law when it stated "You haveto havea resultingmonetary damage." RT CLRA standing, of the 78:7-8.The Trial Courtmisinterpreted plainlangua-ee Met'er.as that by shou,n its facially incorrectcitationto Met'erfor the premrse "Plaintiff musthave sustained caused the by monett^' implic'tttion Some Court violationof the law. . . ." AA I :210n.1. The Supreme defendant's that exactlytheopposite: a CLRA piaintiffdoesnol haveto tn Met'erstated which are broader than damages. ratheranl damages. but showmonetary /ri. damages. actut.tl at in Balsarn its Opposition +3-i-l rlhen misquotes blatantly Trancos 181 ProdLrct Crt.re.r. Cal, Hormone that states Steroid it claimsthatBalsam (2d Balsamsaid dama-ees. App. -lth 1.+5 Dist.2010)doesnot require HonnoneProduct Balsam saidthatSteroitl of nothing the sort. Rather. followedMet'er when it held that a CLRA actiondoesnot require Cases (monetary) Itl. damages. at 156. ac'tual citationto Doe l w'illfullymisses pointof Balsarn's the And Trancos SBA.2010U.S.Dist.LEXIS 68859at xl0- 11 t ' .AOL L L C , N o . C 0 6 -5 8 66 can (N.D. Cal.June22.201,0).The pointof thecitationis thata person be mone\ out ot withoutspending of tbr damaged. purposes CLRA standing. oocket.

TO OppOStrtON Rnpry TOCROSS-ReSpONoENT'S CnOSS.AppELLANT'S BRTgT' OPENING CROSS.APPELLANT'S

3. There is No PreemptionDefenseto Balsam's Cross-Appeal slidesinto an irrelevant Trancos at In its Opposition -14-.15, plain but aboutpreemption. this is a red herring. By its o'uvn discussion the preempts CLRA. because the the language. CAN-SPAM Act nev'er This c C L R A i s n o t s p e c i f i t o e m a i l .s e e I 5 u ' s ' c ' $ 7 7 0 7 ( b ) ( l ) ( A()" lari's the to Act shallnot be construed preempt appitcability'of (A) State contract. or trespass. State inclurding to thatare not specific electronit'mail. Inc'.-Ill t'. added).SeealsoPov;ers Potter-t'Barn tort law. . .") (emphasis (4thDist.2009) : C a l .A p p ..l th 1 0 3 9 ,1 0 4 1 lawsthat "arenot state CAN-SPAM doesnot preempt Because C, to mail."( 15 U.S. 7707( b) /21.) sp e ci fi c e l ectr onic we specific e-marl, to Song-Beverly is not in any manner [] by is conclude Song-Beverly not preempted CAN-SPAM. to Act. Like the Song-Beverlv theCLRA is not specific emarlanddoesnot the email. Therefore. CAN-SPAMAct doesnot andcarulot evenmention as may attemptto arguefederalpreemption preempt CLRA. Trancos the Codet 17519.5 on & in its defense its own appeal theBusiness Professions has defense no placein Balsams crossbut of cause action. thepreemption of for appeal theCLRA cause action. 1. Balsam Does l,lot Nee Does Not SeekMonetarv Relief [Jnder the CLRA Brief. in Opening Finally.as discussed detailin Balsam's Inc. the v'. Annttn:iato eMachines - discussine CLRA andB&P Code a $ $ 1 7 2 0 0 n d 1 5 0 0 h e l dthat reliance causation and for basis requirins thereis a le-sitimate monetar)' benefit. The sameneed vr,here plaintiff :;eeks the benefit statutory of doesnot existwhentheprincipal by evenwhenundertaken a singleindir idual enforcement. plaintiff.is protection thepLrblic. of representative non-class

10 OpposlrtoNTo REpLyro CRoss-RnspoNoENT's Cnoss-AppELLANT's

BNTCT. S OPENING CROSS.APPELT,ANT'

- 1 02 S u p p . d 1 1 3 3 .1 1 3 7( C.D.Cal.2005) .As Baisam madeclear . has Ir. 2 a benefitunderthe CLRA. oniy an injunctionto he is not seeking monetary thatTrancosdoesnot harmthe public at largeby returningto its ensure practices the future. in trnlarvful person standard. the a because CLRA uses reasonable iVloreover. v. Corp..I l3 Cal. App. -lth 1351. Atlvoc'cttesEchostar Satellite Consunter that doesnot needto proveor evenalle-ue he 1360(2d Dist. 2003).Balsam person mightbe misled. only thata reasonable wasrnisled. the accuses Balsctm disregarding statutorv of Amazingly Trcutcos . at doesnothingof the sort: laneuage the CLRA. Opposition 50. Balsam of that language Civil Code$ 1780states of notes thatthe statutory Balsam "An)' consumer bv as who suff'ers damage" the resultof actsprohibited any Balsam to of $ 1770hasstanding bring a CLRA cause action.As above. spams sentby Trancos.SeeB&P Code damage receiving by sr-rftered (e the is $ 1 7 5 2 9 (d ). ).(g ),(h ). T r anco,; thepar tydisr egar ding plain requirement the into to language, attempting forcea purchase/reliance by For w'hen suchrequirement no exists.e\IenthoughLegi.sLutinq Tlte statute a rejected common-la''i reportsthat the Legislature specitically Consumer requirement. traud(i.e..reliance) C. The SpamsViolated the CLRA in Multiple Wavs 1. Civil Codefi 1770(at(2) the of prohibits mi;representing source Civil Code{ 1770(aX2) goodsand services. failedto deliberately registered domainnames. its privately Trancos (eventhoughrt nanleUSAProductsOnline its business register fictitious FBNs).RA 9-10.RT FBNs andlrctt'to register kneu'it had to register 1 - 1 48 :1 6 -2-1.5 0 :1 6 -2-1.5 - l:11- 15. claimed addr ess be a box at a 0 to its and 1l

To OppostrtoN REPLy Cnoss-AppELLANT's ro CRoss-Rrspoi',{IENT's

BNTPE SOPEXTNC CROSS.APPELI-ANT'

for branchof The UPS Store(andregistering that box usingan unregistered contract U.S. and namein violation The UPS Store's of business fictitrous RT Thus. AA A P o staF o rm 1 5 6 3 ), A 1 :213- 20. 3:,136- 87. 222.16- 223.21. l of the misrepresented true source the spams. Trancos of The Trial Court alreadynradefindin,es fact that Trancostook that the public couldnot identifllit. steps ensure to anduses privately rts re-qisters domainnames Defendant to so DomainsBv Proxi,' thatreference that fWhois queries] by members the public rvouldnot revealthe true owner of of n th ed o ma i n am e.AA i:2ll- 12. effortsto impair a undertook Defendant Trancos intentionaily locate. respond it or to abilityto identify, [spam]recipient's to asthe initiatorof theemail.andthatit intended hideitselt AA 1: ))9. by as from identification recipients the sender. practices and atfirmativeiyestablished Trancosintentionally avoid the ability to and procedures avoidall humancontact. Trancos directlyto stop of of members thepubiicto contact of and the sending emails" avoidmembers the publicer en of w sent em ails..' \,\ 1:l3l- 13. the kn o v'i rtg h o actually unregistered resisrratitrn. that And Balsamtestrfied the private at r/iri address The UPS Storeactualiy name.andclaimed business fictitious of Trancos the source the spams.RT 337. as prevent him from identifying and repeatedly claimsthat L/SAProductsOnline.comits Trancos It were"validlyregistered." simplyisn't true. Private otherdomainnames violatesB&P usedfor spamming of registration lnternetdomainnames who it because misrepresents ownsthe domain Code$ 17529.5(a)(2), registration lnternet of domain usedto sendthe spams.Private names alsovrolates federal the CAN-SPAMAct. 18 names usedfor spamming (d)(2). Seealso Uniretl t'. F.3d Stcttes Kilbritle.58.+ U.S.C.$ 1037(aX4), By states a 1240.1259(9th Cir. 2009). And Domains ProxyInc. expressh'

t2
To OppostrtoN REpLyro CRoss-RsspoNnENT's Cnoss-AppELLANT's
OPTNNC BRINT CROSS.APPELI,ANT'S

policy prohibitingthe useof its privateregistration services spammin_e. for cl,rd 15. reasons. Trancos not "r,'alidll' RT 94:5-96: RA 49-52.For all these claimin its Opposition register" of its domainnames.Thus.Trancos' any a contained validl;"registered that at 11-48that "it is undisputed the header name"is entrrely false.It is ren'much di.spuretl. domziin that Trancos againattempts mislead Courtinto believing to this names. at Balsam's claim is based fancifuldomain on Opposition -18--19. so for support.However.this is not the basrs that it canlook to KleJfman le-eal claim. Rather. Balsam's claimis based privatere,qistrtttictrt. on of Balsam's names. not thelanciful natureof the dornain of Trancos alsoviolated l'710G)(2; because seven the eightFrom $ Dating,Your Promotion. Names- PaidSurvey.Your Business. Christian Bank Wire TransferAvaiiable,DatingGeneric. andJoin Elite who the1, reallv from. As the misrepresent source the spams: the of iire From Narnes frial Court found.these do not truly revealwho sentthe email. l'hus the sender ("from") is misrepresented. of these All information emaiis Trancos. noneof theemails but camefrom Defendant (or thebody or theopt-out). . . this . disclose in theheader "senders" headers the otherseven The [] identitied the in of rnisrepresented emarls not existor areotherwise do [], findingin its Opposition. this AA l:231. Trancos not dispute factual did the based nor couldit. tor BrianNelsoncouldn'tevenidentify' adr,'ertisers -301.2. on theFrom Names.RT 302:26 because As discussed Balsam doesnor needto showreliance. above. to of inrended resultrn the saleor lease appliesto transacttons the statute person goods services. a and or Civ. Code$ 1770(a), uses reasonable standard.

13
ro OppostrtoN REpLy CRoss-RrsponpENT's ro Cnoss-AppELLANT's
BNTPT OPENING CROSS.APPELI-ANT'S

2. Civil Codefi 1770(a)(3) the prohibits misrepresenting affi|ation. Cil'il Code$ 1770(aX3) by. with . or ceftification another. or connection. association neversentunsoltcited Brian Nelsontestifiedat trial thatTrancos but 302:4-6. theTnal Courtfolrndthat email.RT 259:17-18. comrnercial no contained promises MediaandTrancos Hi-Speed between thecontract that that or representations the ownersof the emailaddresses Hi-Speed or directconsent any other ever-qave Mediaprovidedto Trancos 1 1 emails.AA I :221. RT '180: 1-'187:1. to permission sendcommercial Balsamtestifiedat trial that the emaiiswere unsolicited.RT lvloreover. 3 :4 . :9 3 2 5 -3 2 1 .3 91:2 4 -2 53 94: - I 0. with their alsomisrepresented atfiliation/connection Defendants Dom ains of B D oma i n s y P ro xyIn c.i n violation Civil Code| 1770( a) ( 3) . the forth a policyprohibiting useof its private By Proxypubliclysets RT usedfbr spammine. 94.5-96:15. for services domainllames registration reeister their By RA 49-52. By usingDomains Proxylnc. to privately that falseLy represented they had DomarnsBi' Defendants domainnames. And w'hen for to Proxy'spermission useits services spamming. serr,ices. registration By to contracting useDomains Proxy'sprivate By' to failed to mentionthe fact that it rntended useDomarns Trancos Hctttda lvlotc,,r Daughertt,t'.,\trrcricart for Proxy'sservices spamming..See a 835 A C o :.1 4 1 C a I. p p . -l th8 2 -1. ( 2dDist.1006)( "although ciaimm ay' be omissions. be to fraudulent underthe CLRA in termsconstituting stated actualll'' made to mustbe contrary a representation the actionable omission \'(t.\ tlte o;f'a.fact de.fentlottt rtbligetlto or by the defendant. on omi,ssion added). tlisclo.se"(emphasis )

t4
TO OPPOSTTTON REPLY CROSS.RTSPONNENT'S TO CnosS.APPELLANT'S BNM OPENING CROSS-APPELLANT'S

Trancos'citedunpublished federalauthority. Kovralsld' Hev'Lerrt', 7 P a c k a r d o m p o n t . 2 0 1U . S .D i s t .L E X I S ; 1 1 3 3a t x i 6 ( N . D C a l .A p r . C 1 that position. the simplereason for 15,2011),doesnot help Trancos' in to Trancostlidhavereason know that the variousmisrepresentations the to weremisleading.Trancos hadreason know that Balsamdid not spams Trancos adrnitted it that give ir directconsent sendhim email.because to form ValueClick.RT 295:12-13. acquired list of emailaddresses the domainnames Trancos had reason know the privatelyregrstered to of because that that misrepresented Trancoswas the true source the spams. Trancos and used is the very natureof privateregistration. in fact the reason 461 4. privateregistration.RT 240:20-212:9. 22-,462 to Trancosalsohadreason know that the From Namesu,ere misleading. because BrianNelson couldn'tidentifyhis own advertisers 2. based theFrom Names.RT 302:26-301 (lf Nelsoncouldnot identifv on in for afterresearchin_u question preparation trial. this the the advertisers expect mererecipient theemailsto be abieto identifvthe a of Courtcannot had reason know thatone Sr-rbject Line was advertisers.) Trancos to rnisleading because BrianNelson couldn'tfigureout how to qetpaid55 ju.;t for takinga sllrvev.RT at 2(i2.12-261:9. had reason know Trancos to was itselfas "USAProductsOnline" misleading because thatidentifying the name("FBN"). eventhoush Trancos neverregistered fictitious business FBNs.because had it r i t kn e wtt h u d to re g i steF BNs andhov' tor egister l61 p r op e rl y g i ste reo th e rF BNs. RA 9- 10,RT - 148: 20.- 150:6- 21. re d - 1 5'1 :1 1 -i 5 .ra n co s a dre ason knowthatclaiming box at The UPS T h to a particularlr,' w,hen siened r-rp was it address misleading. Storeas its business FBN. in r,'iolation The UPS Store's for the box usingthe unregistered of l AA RT c o n tra ct n dU .S .P o staF or m 1563. a AA 1:213- 20. 3:- 136- 87.

l5 ro OppostrtoN Rnplv ro CRoss-Rpspol,loENT's Cnoss-AppELLANT's

BNMT OPENTNG CROSS.APPELLANT'S

at Brian Nelson'sfaisetestimony triai that notwithstanding 222:16-223:21. usingthe into any contracts had neverentered Trancos name.RT 503:2-4. USAProductsOnline.com because needto showreliance. doesrzol Baisam above. As discussed of to intenclerl resuitin the saleor lease appliesto transactrons the statute person a and or Civ. Code$ 1770(ai. uses reasonable _eoods services. standard. J. Civil Codefi 1770(a)(4\ the prohibits misrepresenting geo-eraphical Civil Code$ 1770(a)(4) originof goodsandservices. from a box at The UPS Trancosclaimedthatits emailsoriginated up si-ened for a u,hich AA 1:213-20.3:-136-87. is not true. Trancos Store. rvriting"USAProductsOnline" box at The UPS Storewhile deceptiveiy name- in the "Cornpany"line and fictitiousbusiness an unregistered AA F-orm 1,563. and contract U.S.Postal the violated UPSStore's thereby RT AA l'.219-220. 3:480-87. 222:16-22321 for box wasa vaiid address the claimsthattheUPS Store Trancos thathe at receipt rnail.Opposition 53. andyet BrianNelsontestified of letter- a letterthat "should"har,'e Balsam'sinitial demand neverreceived i m ad e ts w a y to h i m. R T 2 81:8- 20. for did $2.500 Traneos' Finally.Balsam not askthat/rereceive t order violationof &BP Cocle 17538.5. Thit Courtshould undisputed $ - "lt is unlawful in the saleor offeringfor saieof consumer goodsor whichutihzes in conducting, business this state any for services any person the . service . . to fail to disclose legalname maiiboxreceiving , . . a private address ti'om street is underivhich btisiness doneand . . . the complete and conducted all advertisin,e promotional in is whichbusiness actually rs of of , materials., , Any vrolation theprovisions this section a 16 TO OPPOSIUON REPLY CNCISS.APPELLANT'S TOCROSS.RPSPONOE:IT'S BNITT S OPENTNC CROSS.APPELLANT'

Trancos pay the fine to the Countyof Los Angeles.whereit deceptivelv to for contracted a box at The UPS Store. and (at(9\ 4. Civil Codefr 1770(at(5\ that and representin-u -eoods prohibits Civil Code$ 1770(aX5.t whichtheydo not have. Civii or havecharacteristics benetlts services goods sen'ices with intentnot to or prohibits advertising Codeq 1770(a)(9) sell them as adr,'ertised. Line "Get pard The Court found.as a matterof fact.that the SLrbiect because 5 Dollarsfor I survev"wasmisieading Adventure. for vou If one clicks on the advertisement Surr,'e1l "get paid5 dollars I survey." Indeed. \'ou are for do not obligated signup for threeoffers.thentakemultiple to of and haveno guarantee gettingpaid anythingby' surveys anyonefor takingthe survey. Indeedno one w'hotestified got rvho actuallytried the website paid for taking a survev. AA 1:214. clickedthe linksin the andhis expertwitness JudyHopelain Balsam (or of Line. and the spamto research truthfulness lack thereof) the Subject went as fiu as they could beforerealizingthatthey could/lot set paid $5 promotionai offers"too. theyhadto "complete f'or .7asr takinga survey... Tr CEO. 3. : R ' I 3 3 9 :2 4 -3 4 0 :6 6 5 I 0 - I 2. 4 I - l: I - - lI 6:25. Br ianNelson. ancos' process. found thathe eventestifiedthat he went throughthe re-uistration tor and $5.7ast taking hadto signup tor "inbox rewards." couldnot receive \.tas no that Thus. ancos' claim ther e Tr a su rve y.R T a t 2 6 2 :1 2 -2 61:9. anv wouidnot receive withoutspending ntone\'. that $5 evidence Balsam i O p p o si ti oa t 5 5 -5 6 . s fa i s e. n jail in punishable imprisonment thecounty' not exceeding by misdemeanor two fii'e hundreddollars or six months, by a fine not exceedin-9 thousand ( 5 2 , 5 0 0 o,r b y b o t h . " B & P C o d e$ 1 7 5 3 8 . 5 ( a ) . ) 17 TO OPPOSITTON TO REPLY CROSS.RPSPONOENT'S Cnoss.ApPELLANT'S BNTrT. OPENING CROSS.APPELLANT'S

Brief at 22 thattheemail claimsrn its Opening TrancosalsofalselY in offers.Nothing the that a personcan declinethepromotronal itselfstates
ol emailsaysanything the sort. AA 3 : . 1 3 6 - 3 9 . 5. Civil Codetr1770(a)(16\ of that g representing the subject a l6) Civil Cocle 1770(aX prohibits representatlon rvith in has transaction beensupplied accordance a prevtot-ts whenit hasnot. "presented The Trial Court found as a matterof fact that Balsam to that [hel neverconsented receiveanl' oi these evidence uncontradicterj . eightemailsfrom any of the sources . . . a1dthat lBaisam]had no adl'ertisers with any of the ei-eht relationship business or preexisting current of werethe subject the eighternails [1"' AA or products services whose I : 2 1 32 3 0 . . (falsel-v) that clarmed Trancos in Nevertheless. eachandeveryspam. . i i o Ba lsa m p te d n to re ce i vets em aii. RT i27:5- 15.HoweverCahfor nia' s l( B&P r consent"equir em ent. Code$ 17- 519'd) ' la a n ti -sp a m w h a sa " d i re ct andhad knew' Trancos its acquired list from ValueClick. Trancos Because to to reason know that Balsarrnevergaveir directconsent sendhim email' RT 295:22-23.

D.A

rvtoE nction is Practices ResumeTheir Unlawful

hat Defe

Do Not

andTrirncos of to hasstanding bringtheCLRA cause actlon. Balsam tts treereignto resume the vioiated CLRA. Wiil this CourtgiveTrancos activity'l spamming authorityin his OpeningBrief. includingfrom the Balsampresented nhere thereis a an Court.thatacourtcanissue injunction U.S.Supreme its ma\ resltme unlau'tulactivltres. thata defendant possibility reasonabie

18
TO OppOStnoN Rnprv TOCROSS'RnSpONnENT'S CnOSS.ApPELLANT'S
CROSS.APPELLANT'S OPETTNC BNTTT.

E.tportAssocicrtiorl. 393 Phosphate t,. See,e,g.,LlnitedStates Concentrated Socien.3'13U.S' MeclicaL State t'. States Oregon U.S. 199(1968).t-lnited r', 326(1952).FerieralTradeComntission AffbrdablelvlediaLLC. 179F.3d (g 1 22 8 thC i r. 1 9 9 9 ). the Phosphc1e. Courtnotedthat"[H]ere we have In Concentratetl for that own statement it wouid be uneconomical themto only appellees' joint operations." U.S. at 103. This is e.\ctctll 393 in engage any turther justification stopping spamrning it wasn'tprofitable. for Trancos' - 155:i9B Op Ap p e l l a n t's e n i n g ri e f ( "AOB") 53.AA l:212.RT 29.1:18- 13. 'Ihe that neveradmitted Trancos parricularly since logicalimpiication. 21. is evena singlething it did wasevenslightlymisleading. thatTrancos as spammin-e. soonas it clin figureout how to the reserves right to resume do it profitably. who that a defendant court stated This is why theAffordableMedict to is its ceases unlawfulbehavior still subject an injunction volunrarily at couldresume anytime. 179F.3dat 1137-38 the because defendant of to (citation omitted)."lt is theduty of thecourts beware effortsto defeat w'hen and of injunctiverelief by protestations repentance refttrm.especially suit.and thereis probabilityof timed to anticipate seems abanclonment 343 MetlicalSocien', U.S.at 333. OregonSrure resumption." the Evenassuming truth of the clairnthat Trancosstopped trom span-uning for now - thereis nothingat all to stopDefendants any time they wish. their unlawful spamming resuming Dretlgittg Trancos citeslvl.T.Thornev. Honc'ut In its defense. -1 C that tor Dist, 19"11) . thepr er nise "To C omp cu tt'. 3 a l .A p p . 2 d 131 t:,3d the authorize issuingof an injunctionit shouldappealri,ith reasonable and or that the wrongful actsrvill be continued repeated." Trancos certainty

19
TO OPPOSITION RNPIYTOCROSS.RNSPONNE:\T'S CnOSS.APPELLANT'S BzuET SOPENING CROSS.APPELLANT'

Ford Co..186Cal.App.4th 983. 1020('lth Pearson alsocitesNelsonv'. in issue u r acuum car that D i s t.l 0 l 0 t tb r th ep re mi se ".Aninjunction ur ot that mav happenin the fearsaboutsomething on base<l the proponents' that thereis a realistic by future.It must be supported actualevidence in to that the party enjoinedintends en-sage the prohibited prospect tt thatthe orih reASOn has Trancos testified above. activity." As described not it wasbecause wasn'tprofitable. because'l-rancos spamming stopped too dothprotest much... wrong. ln fact.Trancos it realized did anything an Trancoswritesopposing injunctionshouldcallsethis everysentence fights so hiud, Apparentll'. vr'ft-r'Trancos and consider Court to pause to the is 1'rancos attempting reserve right to resumeits spammtn-e. Sen'ic'e.s ot' In F-rientls the Earth Inc. t'. Lttitllav'Ertvirortnerttal claimingthat that"a defendant (TOC Inc,. theU.S. Supreme Courtstated ) burdenof the mootsa casebears formidable its voluntarycompliance wrongtulhehal'ror cor-rld clearthe ailegedll, that shou'in.u it is absolutely ( o le n o tr e a s o n a bby e x p e c t etd r e c u r . "5 2 8U . S .1 6 1 . l t i 9 - 9 01 9 9 9 ) .H e r e . 'uvill resume its not clearthatTrancos not it is certainly absolutely itnd dunngits spamming. its Trancos' actions If spamming. anything. that ntayu'ell suggest Tr'ancos duringthe trial.strongiv CEO'stestimony out as operations. soonas it fi-eures irow it can tLrmii its restart spamming whereit cannotbe emarlfrom an address unsolicited buck by sending ' traced. THIS COURT SHOULD HOLD BRIAN NELSON.TOINTLY/ SEVERALLY LIABLE ON THE JUDGNIENT that and state C C a l .C o rp o ra ti o n sode$$ 17101( a) ( c) and 17158( at are and of otticersof corporations members limited liabiiitv companies

III.

20
TO OPPTISTTTO\i REPLY TO CROSS.RCSPOXUENT,S CnOSS.APPELLANT'S BNNT OPENTNG CROSS.APPELI,ANT'S

liablefor their o\,'n tortiousconduct.See,e.g.,Wtatt v'.(Jnion'\[orrgage ( r om : C o .e t a \.2 4 C a l .3 d 1 1 3 ,785( 1919) citations itted)seealsoPeople ' , ( 1215 2d Dist.2005) L L P a ci Ji c a n d ma rk L C .1 2 9 CaLApp.4th 1203. from is managef not insulated (holdingthat a limited liability company's the because conduct merel,v in conduct liabilityfor participation tortious androle asa manager). within the scope occurs Balsam that BrianNelsonclaimsin his Opposition theonly actir,'it1' of is in which BalsamclaimsNelsonengaged the privateregistration at61. This is a faisestatement. domainnames.Opposition certain 'francos lnc.'sdornain registered thathe personally Nelsontestified w'ere resistered and that the domainnames names be usedfor spamming to l2:26233:24- 26.236 13.3 I 1: 11-13.- 161 u si n gh i s cre d i t rd . T 2 21:4, ca R of with andratifiedthe decision an independent 462:4. and that he agreed But RT register domainnames. -16l:l-l--162:J. he to contractor privately aboutthe emailadvertisins thathe wasasked makedecisrons to a/.so stated in in at project thatresulted the spams issue this Action. RT 311:))-26. r.l'ho w'ouldbe contacted Nelsona/so testifiedthat he was the point person aboutspam. RT received certified a lettercomplainin-u if the company in about thathe wasinvolr,'ed discussions Nelsonalsoadmitted 282:11-22. RT regarding emailadvertising. 300:7-12. blacklistsandcomplaints Nelsonadmitted he wasthe solefounder the that of 3 10:l0- i 7. Moreover. commercial began sending RT company. 441: 10-13.andthatTrancos only empioyed threepeople.RT -l-12:20--t-1.1:19. emailswhenTrancos "u of that Peoplet'. Conw'at'held thepresident thecorporation as in and to of a position controlthe activities the fcorporation] thuscouldbe 12 l h e i dcri mi n a l l yi a b l eto r falseadver tising." Cal.App. 3d 875.886( ld personnel whenrt Dist. 197;1.Here.Trancos only hadthreemanagement

2l
TO OPPOSITTON REPLY CROSS-RNSPONNENT,S TO CnOSS.APPELLANT'S BNITT OPENING CROSS-APPELLANT'S

to at sentthe spams issue Balsam.AA 3:435. Nelsonwas (andstrllrs)the his that despite wite Laure Chief ExecutiveOfficer. L/. Nelsonadmitted officer. rrl..shewasreaiivjust a title Majcherczyk's of chief operations 313:l- 12'3112) contr ol'RT 312:3- 6' a s a l e sp e rso n dn o t i n o p e r ationai Crearit'e Vice President. 315:9, The only otherofficer'stitle wasSenior and Who elsecontrolled ratified- evenif not AA Sen,ices. 3:-135. rf executed the unlawfulemaiicampaign. not Nelson'lIf Conwaycould the Nelsonmeets then be held criminallt liablefor falseadvertising. surely' personaill' find BrianNelson This Courtshould lowercivil threshold. liablefor the actionshe setin motion. IV. NOTE REGARDING TRANCOS' OB.IECTIONSTO BALSAM'S PAGE CITATIONS AND REFERENCES andin its muchin its RepiyBrief for its Appeal. makes Trancos supposedly aboutBalsam's Cross-Appeal. Brief to Baisam's Opposition shouid that suggests Balsam and to citations rherecorcl. actually improper ls Trancos incorrect..\ttv such dueto suchcitations. losethe entireappeal and fault.not Baisam's. Balsam attorney's are erTors Balsam'S crtation to elrors. Mr. Walton is prepared make shouldnot sufferfor his attorne)''s to pursuant Codeof Civil Procedure 'i73 at oral argument. $ a deciaration the to attempts mislead Courtasto what More to thepoint.Trancos to stringcitattons included clid. For themostpart.Balsam actually Balsam and evidence.In somecases. or the Judgment Complaintantl to testimony relying what the trial courtfound.without actuall,'Balsammerelyreportecl of on the finding for purposes the appeal. to attempt focus by not This Courtshould be sicletracked Trancos' awaylrom the actualmeritsof the dispute. attention

22
TO OppOStrtON REPLY CnOSS-A.ppELLANT'S TOCROSS'RESpOxnENT'S '
BNM S CROSS.APPELLANT'OPENING

V. CONCLUSION stated herein.this Court shouldfind that Baisamhas For the reasons at of to standing bring a CLRA cause action.and that the spams issue violatedthe CLRA. This Court shouldorderthe Trial Court to enioin Trancos hasshow n because Trancos from suchtutureunlawful spamming. signals to opposition an injunction andits vehement no signsof remorse its as thatit may well resume spamming soonas it thinksit cando so the profitably(andwithout gettingcau-eht). injunctionserves public An interest. personaily liablefor This Courtshouidalsohold BrianNelson participated. in Trancos'unlawful actions. which he personally

LAW OFFICES TIMOTHY W ALTON OF

Dated:

A u c u s t 9 .2 0 1 1 1

/s/ Timothr J, \\-alton

TimothyJ. Waiton Attorneys Piaintiff. for Respondent. Cross-Appellant and

23

ro REpLy OppostrtoN Cnoss-AppELLANT's ro CRoss-RrspoNpE\r's

BNTEN OPENING CROSS.APPELLANT'S

CERTIFICATEOF WORD COUNT (California Rules Court.Rule8.204(cXl) of

The text of this brief consists 6.232words.excluding of tables and Word 1003word processin-e thiscertificate. counted the Mrcrosoft as by programusedto generate brief. the

D ate d :

A u su st1 9 .2 011

/si TimothvJ. Walton TimothyJ. Walton Attorneysfbr Plaintiff. Respondent. Cross-Appeilant and

24
CNOSS.APPELLANT'S To CRoSS.RrspoNoENT'S REPLY OpposlrloNTo
BRIET CROSS.APPELLANT'S OPENING

PROOF OF SERVICE AND DELIVERY that: I. CathyRiley.declare to i am at leastl8 yearsof ageand not a part,v the above-entitled of isa a cti o n .My b u si n e ssd d ress fheLaw Otfices DanielBalsam.31+ 5 18. CA GearyBlvd. #225.SanFrancisco. 9'11 REPLY TO CROSS-APPELLANT'S the I served foregoing TO OPPOSITION CROSS- APPELLANT' S C ROS S -R E S P ON D E N T' S a in B O PE N IN G R IE Fo n A u gust19.2011by depositing copyther eof a tully with the postage Service. with the U.S.Postal envelope sealed listedbelow: to prepaid. addressed the persons o RobertNeison. Blvd..Suite 35 Nelson Weinkauf. N{itcheil & CA 1 5 .S a nR a fael, 94903 o Clerk of the Superior County(Attn: Hon. Courtof Sanlvlateo Redw'ood City. CA CountyCenter. Marie S. Weiner), "100 94063 r ;\ppellateCoordinator Office of the r\ttorneyGeneral. Los Angeles. Law Sectionl0f) q SnrinuSrrssl. Consumer cA 90013 o District Attorneyof SanMateoCounty..100CountyCenter. Citv. CA 94063 3rd Floor.Redwood PDF a I served text-searchable copyof the brief on the Cairfornia Court's*ebsrte the Courtby uploading brief to the Supreme Supreme (http://wrvw.courtinlo. a.gov/courts/courtsofappeai/appbrif m ) on efs. c c A u g u s 1 9 .2 0 1 1 . t I declare underpenaltyof perjuryunderthe lawsof the Stateof this 19thda1' of Californiathat the toregoingis true and correct. Executed 2011at SanFrancisco, California. August.

/s/ CathvRilev CathyRiley