Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Becker v. Skype Inc.

United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division

February 10, 2014, Decided; February 10, 2014, Filed

Case No.: 5:12-CV-06477-EJD

Opinion

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLANTIFF CANTON BECKER

Presently before the Court is Defendants Skype Inc. and Microsoft Corporation's (collectively, "Defendants") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Canton Becker ("Plaintiff") from the instant action pursuant to subsections (b)(1) and (b)(6) of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. See Docket Item No. 38. The Court found this matter suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and previously vacated the hearing. Having thoroughly reviewed  [*2] the parties' briefing and for the following reasons the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion.

I. Background

Skype provides both free and fee-based telephone services through an Internet connection. See Docket Item No. 30 (Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages, "SAC"). Plaintiff Becker opened a free Skype account in 2005. Id. In October 2006 he purchased a three-month subscription for a fee-based "Skype Online Number" in order to communicate with clients of his graphic design business while traveling. Id. At the end of the subscription period, he did not renew the Online Number and service ended. Id. On five occasions through 2011, Plaintiff purchased additional three-month subscriptions that he let lapse at the end of their terms. Id. Each time he initiated service, he saw a notice that gave the option to permit Skype to auto-renew his subscription at the end of the three-month period but did not select it. Id. On August 13, 2012 Plaintiff purchased another three-month Online Number subscription. Id. On November 10, 2012 he noticed he had been charged $18 for an additional three-month subscription despite not having requested it. Id. Plaintiff spent two hours that day attempting  [*3] to secure a refund from Skype, which later that day agreed to refund the full amount. Plaintiff received his refund on November 16, 2012. Id.

On November 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint for Damages along with Josephine Asplund and Darrin Wesley in Santa Clara County Superior Court. See Docket Item No. 1, Ex. 1. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on December 19, 2012. Id. Two days later, on December 21, 2012, Defendants removed the action to this Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. See Docket Item No. 1 (Notice of Removal). Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second, Fifth, and Sixth Claims on January 28, 2013 (Docket Item No. 14), which ultimately was fully briefed, as well as a separate Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on April 10, 2013 (Docket Item No. 26), which was not. Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on April 24, 2013, which, upon filing, became the operative complaint in this matter. See Docket Item No. 30. Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on May 9, 2013. See Docket Item No. 38.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17583 *

CANTON BECKER, JOSEPHINE ASPLUND, and DARRIN WESLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SKYPE INC., a Delaware Corporation, MICROSOFT CORPORATION, and DOES 1-20. Defendants.

Prior History:  [*1] [Re: Docket No. 38].

CORE TERMS

refund, subject matter jurisdiction, subscription, three-month, concrete, spent