771 F. Supp. 2d 1195
N.D. Cal.2011Background
- CFIT, a nonprofit asserting member interests in domain name registry markets, sues VeriSign and ICANN alleging antitrust and related claims.
- VeriSign is sole operator of the .com and .net registries under ICANN contracts and sets per-domain-name fees.
- CFIT alleges its members include registrars and registrants who suffer in a contested market and seeks relief on their behalf.
- ICANN approves VeriSign’s contracts and VeriSign controls registry databases since 2001 (predecessor NSI managed them).
- Procedural history: 2005 complaint; 2006 standing deficiency dismissal; 2006 SAC; 2007 dismissal with prejudice; 2010 Ninth Circuit remanded for .net claims and Twombly/Iqbal standards; CFIT amended TAC.
- Court grants VeriSign’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend on standing and .net market claims; no disgorgement or jury trial allowed; CFIT denied leave to amend paragraph 16 with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CFIT has associational standing. | CFIT claims its members would sue; supporters are CFIT members. | CFIT fails to identify members or connect supporters to membership. | Lacks associational standing; dismiss. |
| Whether .net claims are pled sufficiently after remand. | CFIT alleges predatory conduct and coerced ICANN processes. | Allegations too conclusory; no plausible conspiracy in .net. | No .net claim plausible; remand not needed after dismissal. |
| Whether disgorgement is available under §16. | Disgorgement of fees alleged as equitable remedy. | Disgorgement not available under §16. | Disgorgement denied. |
| Whether CFIT is entitled to a jury trial. | Court should grant jury or advisory jury under Rule 39. | No right to jury for equitable relief; untimely demand. | No jury trial; denied. |
| Whether the nunc pro tunc amendment should be allowed. | Add two supporters as members. | Needs to be tied to standing; timing issues. | Denied without prejudice; can amend standing via fourth amended complaint. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for antitrust claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- New York State Club Ass'n, Inc. v. City of New York, 487 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1988) (associational standing requirements)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1975) (standing must show actual or threatened injury by challenged action)
- Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat'l Union, 442 U.S. 289 (U.S. 1979) (organizational standing framework)
- County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1991) (standing considerations in procedural context)
- Coalition For ICANN Transparency, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 611 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2010) (reversed on .com/.net market claims; remanded for .net with pleading refinements)