789 F.Supp.3d 880
S.D. Cal.2025Background
- Shahnaz Zarif, a California resident, brought a putative class action against Hwareh.com, Inc. ("Health Warehouse"), an out-of-state online pharmacy selling and shipping prescription drugs to California residents.
- Zarif alleged Health Warehouse surreptitiously collected and shared her sensitive information and browsing activity through tracking software (like Facebook Pixel) while she searched for prescription drugs for herself and her family on their website.
- Health Warehouse moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state plausible claims.
- The court previously dismissed earlier versions of the complaint but allowed amendment; the present decision addresses the Third Amended Complaint amid developments in Ninth Circuit law.
- The court considers both whether it can exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Health Warehouse, and the plausibility of Zarif’s claims under various state and federal privacy and data protection statutes.
- The court grants in part and denies in part the motion to dismiss, allowing some claims to proceed, while dismissing others with leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Health Warehouse | Purposeful direction by Health Warehouse towards California | No express aiming or sufficient contacts with California | Jurisdiction proper—Health Warehouse purposefully directed business to California |
| Wiretap Act claim plausibility | Interception of communication content, without consent | No interception of contents, intentionality, or in-transit data | Dismissed—Plaintiff did not sufficiently plead purpose to injure; leave to amend |
| CIPA § 631 (Eavesdropping) claim | Prohibited third-party interception via tracking software | No third-party eavesdropper, section doesn't apply to internet | Claim plausible—statute applies, Plaintiff alleges third party eavesdropper |
| CMIA, CCPA, CDAFA claims plausibility | Sufficient allegations of status as "patient," qualifying business, and unjust enrichment | Plaintiff not a patient, insufficient threshold alleged, no actual loss | Dismissed—Insufficient allegations; leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (Three-prong test for specific personal jurisdiction)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 592 U.S. 351 (2021) (Claims relating to forum-related activities for jurisdiction)
- Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011) ("Express aiming" via internet for personal jurisdiction)
- Zynga Privacy Litigation, 750 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2014) (Definition of "contents" under the Wiretap Act)
- Sussman v. American Broadcasting Cos., 186 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 1999) (Crime-tort exception under Wiretap Act must be primary motivation)
- United States v. Christensen, 828 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2016) (Intent requirement under the Wiretap Act)