Kim v. Trulia, LLC

Kim v. Trulia, LLC

Opinion

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

DORA L. IRIZARRY, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Andrew Kim ("Plaintiff") brings this putative class action pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), against Trulia, LLC ("Defendant"), alleging violations of New York's General Business Law ("GBL") Sections 349 and 350 and claims for unfair competition and unjust enrichment. See generally, Amended Complaint ("Am. Compl."), Dkt. Entry No. 11.¹ Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). See, Def.'s Mot., Dkt. Entry No. 14-1. Plaintiff opposed the motions. See, Plf.'s Opp'n. Defendant replied. See, Def.'s Rep., Dkt. Entry No. 16. For the reasons set forth below, this action is dismissed based on the Court's independent finding that it lacks [*2]  subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA. Accordingly, the Court declines to rule on Defendant's motions which the Court finds to be moot.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a licensed real estate salesperson and broker in New York. Am. Compl. ¶ 57. Defendant operates Trulia.com, one of the nation's leading real estate websites. Id. ¶ 1. On its website, Defendant purports to simplify the process of buying and selling a home. Id. Defendant lists properties that are available for sale in New York and connects prospective homebuyers with the real estate agents for each property. Id. ¶¶ 13-17. Each property listing on Defendant's website has both a "Listing Agent" and three "Premier Agents." Id. ¶¶ 14-15.

The listing agent contracts to sell the property on the homeowner's behalf and exerts considerable time, money and resources to obtain the exclusive listing from the seller. Id. ¶ 11. The listing agent supplies the listing to Defendant for inclusion on its website. Id. ¶ 19. The premier agents, on the other hand, have no connection to the listed properties. Id. ¶ 6. Rather, they pay Defendant referral fees for leads on prospective homebuyers. Id. ¶¶ 6-7. In exchange, Defendant advertises the premier [*3]  agents as the real estate agents for the listed properties even though they have no knowledge of the properties. Id. ¶¶ 6-7, 19. Thus, Defendant enables the premier agents to solicit homebuyers in the listings supplied by the listing agents. Id. ¶ 19.

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