John Faulkner v. Adt Security Services, Inc.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1108
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Faulkner sued ADT in California state court for recording his confidential telephone conversation without consent under Cal. Penal Code § 632.
- The case was removed to the Northern District of California on diversity grounds, and the district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The district court found Faulkner failed to allege a confidential communication and thus not plausibly state a § 632 claim.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal but remanded to allow amendment to plead a federal-plausibility standard under Iqbal and Twombly.
- Faulkner alleged the call was confidential because circumstances indicated it should be confined to the parties, and he disputed a charge.
- The court emphasized the need to plead facts showing an objectively reasonable expectation of confidentiality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Faulkner pleaded a plausible confidential communication | Faulkner contends the call was confidential under § 632 and pleaded circumstances showing expectation of privacy. | ADT argues no confidential communication; Faulkner failed to plead objective confidentiality. | Faulkner failed to plead plausibly; remand for amendment under federal pleading standards. |
| Whether Iqbal/Twombly require more than conclusory allegations | Claims are supported by facts showing confidentiality and context of the call. | Complaint relies on bare legal conclusions about confidentiality. | Complaint contains threadbare conclusory allegations; insufficient under Iqbal/Twombly. |
| Whether a consumer call to a home security company can be confidential | Circumstances could create a reasonable expectation of confidentiality in a billing dispute. | No inherent confidentiality; depends on plead facts. | Confidentiality possible; not categorically excluded; remand for adequate pleading. |
| Whether federal pleading standards apply to this removed action | District court should apply California pleading standards if appropriate. | Federal pleading standards apply in removal and defeat § 632 claim. | Apply federal pleading standards; dismissal appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6). |
| Whether the case should be dismissed with prejudice or remanded for amendment | Amendment could cure pleading deficiencies under Iqbal/Twombly. | Dismissal with prejudice is appropriate given failure to plead plausibly. | Remanded to district court to consider leave to amend. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (federal pleading rules apply in federal court regardless of subject matter)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain plausible factual content, not mere conclusions)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (requires plausibility rather than mere possibility in pleadings)
- Frio v. Superior Court, 203 Cal. App. 3d 1480 (Cal. App. 1988) (defines confidentiality in context of business communications)
- Flanagan v. Flanagan, 27 Cal.4th 766 (Cal. 2002) (objective standard for confidentiality based on surrounding circumstances)
- Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 39 Cal.4th 95 (Cal. 2006) (confidentiality requires objective reasonable expectation of privacy)