SolarCity Corporation v. SunPower Corporation, 5:16-cv-05509

SolarCity sued SunPower and former employee Anne Shuldes‑Torricelli for alleged misappropriation of confidential Salesforce customer data after she left SolarCity and joined SunPower. SolarCity alleges she downloaded hundreds of commercial customer records and retained them on a personal drive.
SolarCity asserted eight causes of action, including the Defend Trade Secrets Act, declaratory relief, conversion, trespass to chattels, UCL, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract/good faith against Shuldes‑Torricelli.
SunPower filed a partial Rule 12(b)(6) motion seeking dismissal (1) to the extent claims relied on SunPower’s use of the “Demand Logic Guarantee” contractual language and (2) of SolarCity’s declaratory relief claim. SunPower also sought judicial notice to show the Demand Logic language was publicly available before the employee left SolarCity.
SolarCity conceded the Demand Logic allegations were not a basis for its remaining claims and did not oppose dismissal on that ground, but opposed dismissal of the declaratory relief claim without prejudice.
The Court granted SunPower’s motion with prejudice as to both (a) any claims relying on the Demand Logic Guarantee (mooting the judicial‑notice request) and (b) the declaratory relief claim, finding amendment would be futile and dismissal with prejudice appropriate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether claims relying on SunPower’s "Demand Logic Guarantee" survive	Demand Logic allegations were pleaded but SolarCity concedes they are not essential to remaining claims	Demand Logic language was publicly available before the employee left; thus cannot support wrongdoing	Dismissed with prejudice as to any claims relying on Demand Logic; judicial notice on that point moot
Whether SolarCity’s declaratory relief claim should be dismissed	SolarCity acquiesced to dismissal but asked it be without prejudice in case facts change	Declaratory relief is duplicative of other claims; amendment would be futile	Declaratory relief claim dismissed with prejudice
Whether SunPower’s judicial‑notice request should be granted	SolarCity did not oppose dismissal on Demand Logic ground (did not contest judicial notice substantively)	Judicial notice intended to show Demand Logic was publicly available in Aug 2015	Request denied as moot because parties agreed to dismiss Demand Logic‑based claims
Whether leave to amend declaratory claim is appropriate	SolarCity suggested future facts might justify reassertion but offered no changed circumstances	Amendment would be futile; plaintiff abandoned the claim in opposition	Leave to amend denied; dismissal with prejudice justified (futility and abandonment)

Bell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., [citation="663 F. App'x 549"] (9th Cir.) (affirming dismissal of duplicative declaratory relief claim)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards; legal conclusions not presumed true)
Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (accept factual allegations as true on Rule 12(b)(6))
Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ'g, 512 F.3d 522 (9th Cir. 2008) (futility of amendment supports dismissal with prejudice)
Mangindin v. Washington Mut. Bank, 637 F. Supp. 2d 700 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (declaratory relief unnecessary when adequate remedy exists in other claims)
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (leave to amend generally granted; courts consider delay, bad faith, futility)
Shwarz v. United States, 234 F.3d 428 (9th Cir. 2000) (court need not accept allegations contradicted by judicially noticeable facts)
Fayer v. Vaughn, 649 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2011) (legal conclusions not treated as factual allegations)
Adams v. Johnson, 355 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2004) (conclusory allegations insufficient to defeat dismissal)