balsam v. trancos - balsam's appeal brief

8/3/2019 Balsam v. Trancos - Balsam's Appeal Brief

1/30

IN THE COURTOF APPEALOF THE STATEOF CALIFORNIAFIRSTAPPELLATEDISTRICTIDIVISIONONE]

DANIELL. BALSAM,Plaintiff,Respondent,ndCross-Appellant.

TRANCOSNC.era/,Defendants,ppellants.ndCross-Respondents.

CASE NOs.4128485and A129458(SuperiorCourt No. CIV471797)Appeal rom the SuperiorCourtof the Stateof California.Courrty f SanMateo,No.CIV471797The {onorableMarieS. Weiner,Judge

CROSS.APPELLANT'SBPLYTO CROSS-RESPONDENT'SOPPOSITIONTO CROSS-APPELLANT'S PENNG BRIEF

Timothy .Walton State arNo. 184292)LAW OFFICES FTIMOTHYWALTON9515Soquel rive.Suite 07Aptos. A 95003Phone831) 85-9800,ax: 650) 18-8687Attorneysor RespondentndCross-Appellantaniel . Balsam


2/30

TABLEOFCONTENTSPage

TAI}LEOFCONTENTS ..... . . . i iTAIILE OF AUTHORITIES """""""""'i i iCROSS-APPELLANTALS,\NI'SREPLYTOCROSS.DEFENDANTRANCOSNC.'SOPPOSITION O BALSANT'SPENING RIEF ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I . l n t r t - rdueion . . . . .l l . Discusston

A. TrancosHadNo Affimative Defensess o theCLRA Cause f Act ion. " " " ' -)B. TheLanguage f theCLRA is Unambiguous.and t GoesAgainst rancos " """"- lC. BalsamHasStandingo Bringa ClLRACauseo f Ac t i on . . . ' . . . . 'D. The SpamsViolated heCLRA in MultipieW a , v s . . . , . .lE. An Injr-rnctions Necessaryo EnsurehatDefendants o Not Resume heirUnlau'fLr1P r a c t i c e s . . . 1 8

III. ThisCourtShouldHold lr ianNelson ointl l /Severa l l yiab le n he udgment . . . . . . . . . . l0IV. NoteRegarding rancos'Objectronso Balsam'sPageCitat ions ndReferr :nces.. . , . . . . r 1

CnOSS-AppELLANT!SEPLY 'OCROSS-RESpONnE\T'SppOStrtoN OCROSS.APPEI-LANT'SPENINGRMT'


3/30

TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage

CaliforniaCasesAron t'.. -l'HctulCompant' fCali.fbntta-143Cal .App. l th196Qd Dis t . 0L)6) . . . . . ' . " " " " " 8Berrt' ,.AmericanE.rpress ubii'shing,ttc'.l41Cal.App. 1th224 4thDist.2007) ""' -5Constrmertlt 'ocates'.Echostar ctell i te orp..i 1 3 C a l . A p p . - l t h3 5 1 ( l d D i s t . 2 0 0 3 ) . . " 1 1Dauglter t t 'v. Anter ic 'an Hont la Motor Co.-l -1.1 al.App. l th82- l 2dDist .2006). . . . . . . ' " "" 1- lFairbank.s t ' . SnPer ior Court .-16Cal . l th 56 (2009). . . . . . " "" -5Ht'pertouch nc t,. ValueClick nc. et ul .192Ca l .App. 4 th 805 2 ,JDis t . 0 l 1 ) . . . " " ' 1 t t t ' ss i t r rKle.iJman '. Vona,qeHoltlin,qs lorP.49 Ca l .4 th 33- l 2010) . . . . . . .pas ' \ t t /1M.7..T'horne '. Honcut Dretlgin,qCompat*'..13Ca l .App. 2d 131 3dDis t ' 1941) . . . . - . . " " 19Met'er v. Sprint SpectrumLLP.-15Cal . l th63.1 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 tc ts .s i t r ri\,lel.soil'.PearsonFord Co..186Cal .App.4 th983 - l rhDist . 010)Pectple v. Conu.'ct)',12 CaLApp.3d875 2dDist .197' t )Peoplev. Paci,ticktndrnark LLC.1 2 9C a l .A p p . l t h1 2 0 3 . l dD i s t .2 0 0 5 ) . . , . . . . . . . . . . . l 1Povt'ers '. Pottery Bant lrtc'..111Cal . pp. l th1039, l th is t .t l09) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0Sc'hnuer'.ManclarinGerns J'Cctl.,nt '-.1 25Ca l .App . t h9z t9. l t hD i s t . 005 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . 6 . 1Sevitlol '.TorgetCorp..18 9Ca l .App .4 th 0 5 - l r h i s t 1010) . . . . , . ' . . 1Steroicl rotlttctHormorteCuse.s.181Cal .App.4 th 1 '152r lD is t . 010)W\,(ttt'. LinionMortg0geCo,et al.21Cal . d '7131919) . . . . .1

CnOSS-AppELLANT'SEPLY OCROSS-RnSpOxoENT'SppOSrutoNOCROSS.APPEI,LANT'SPBXTXCNITPii i


4/30

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES cont.Page

FederalCases,A.rtrturt:jato'. eMachine Inc.." 102 .S u p p2 d 1133 C D 'Ca l '2 0 0 5 ) . . . . ' 1 0 '1 lDoe t'.AOL LLC.No C 06-5866 BA.2010U.S.D is t 'LEXIS68859( N .D .Ca i . un e 2 .2010 t . " . ' . . . . . . . . " " " " " " vFederalTratleCommission'' A./l'ordttbLeediaLLC.i 79 F .3d1 2 2 89r hC i r .1 9 9 9 ) . . ' . ' . ' . . . . .9Frientl,s .f'the arth rtc. v'. aitllawEnt'ironrnental en'ice.s(TOC) r tc. ,5 2 8U . S . 6 t 1 9 9 9 ). . . . . . . l 0Kle.fftnan'. Vona,q,eoldingsCorp..No.CV 07-2,J06 AF (J\ , \ 'Jx) .007U.S.Dist .LEXIS-10487C.D.Cal .May 13.2007 (order rant inqmot ion o c l i smiss). . . . . . . . . . . " ' 6 . 13Kov'alskt' . Hev'lett- ackartlComparn',2 0 1 1 .S . i2 0 1 )l,lor,:lberg '. TriLegictntCorp. et oL.. 145 .Supp .d1082N.D. a l . 006 t . . ' . ' . . . . . ' . +tt n te l S ates t'. Concent are l Phospha e E.rp rt Assoc ctt ct t,3 9 3U . S .1 9 9 1 9 6 8 ) . . . . . . 1 9LtniretlStatesv. Kilbritle.58; t .3c l 2 -10g th i r . 009) . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .l(,lnitetlState.r . Oregon StateMetlical Socien'.3 ;13 .S . 26 1952). . . . . . . . . . . . 9VonGrobev. SprintPCS.312F. Supp. d 1285 S.D.Ca l .2003) 7 ,California Statutes.Rulesof Court. and RelatedDocumentsBus.& Prof .Code$ 17200Unfarr ornpet i t ionau') . . . . . . . .8. 1t )Bus.& Prof .Code$ 17500False dvert is in,saw) . . . . . . 0Bus.& Prof .Code $ 17529. 1529.5 . ' . . ' . . . '7 ta 'ss i t r tBus .& Pro f .Code 17538.5 . . . . . 6 .17Civ.Code$ 1750 tseq. ConsumersegalRemediesct) . , . . . .Pos'st t t tCodeCiv ,Proc . 173 . . . . . l l

Cnoss.ApPELLANT'SEPLY OCROSS.RTSPOXOENT'SPPOSITIONOCROSS.PPELLANT'OPENING NTNN

st .LEXIS :11337N.D Ca l .Ap r .15 .1 . ' )

l v


5/30

PageCalifornia Statutes.Rulesof Clourt.and RelatedDocuments cont.C o r p . C o d e $ $7 1 0 1 .7 1 5 8 . . . . . 1 0 . 2 1Proposi t ion.t r200.1) .. . . .8R u l e f C o u r t . 2 1 6 ( b ) ( 2 i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1FederalStatutes15U.S.C. 7701 tseq. CAN-SPAM ct) , . . . .pa.ss im1 8U.S .C . 1 0 3 7 ( a X 2 )n d dX4) CAN- SPAM ct ) . . . . . . . . . . . .2Other AuthoritiesJamesS. Reed.LegisLating or' f ,he Consurner:Art rtsit ler' .s

Analysi.s .t' 'the onsurner.segal RemetliesAc't.2Pacrprc.J . ( l9 l ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cnoss-AppELLANT'snplv o CRoss-RnspoxnENT'spposrrroNoCROSS.APPELI,ANT'OPENING RTEN


6/30

CASENOs.Al2E485 ndA129458

DANIEL . BALSAN,I.Plaintiff.Respondent.ndCross-Appellant

TRANCOS lNC. er a/ .Defendants. ppellants.and Cross-Respondents

CROSS.APPELLANTBALSAM'S REPLY TO CROSS.RUSPONDENT RANCOS NC. 'SOPPOSITIONTO BALSI\NI 'SOPI,NING BRIEF

On Appeal rom Ordersof theSuperiorCourtof the State f Califbrnia.County f SanMateo.No.CIV-17797TheHonorable arieS.Weiner. udge

I. INTRODUCTIONPlaintiffandCross-AppellantanielL. Baisam "Balsarn") ebated

whethero fi le thisReplyBrief. recauseothingn Defendant ndCross-Respondentrancos nc.' ( Trancos") Opposition ndermines alsam'OpeningBrief. Nevertheless.n an abundancef caution. nd o addressTrancos' nowingmrsstatementsf factsand aw.Balsam hose o fi le thrsbriefReply.As a preliminarymatter. rancos bjectshatBalsam id not ncludea statement f facts or his Cross-Appeal nd supposediy) istakenl,v-

CnOss-ApPELLANT'SEPLY OCROSS.RgSPONOENT'SPPOSTTTONOCROSS.APPELI,ANT'SPTNNCBNITT


7/30

relieson theStatementf factsset orth n his Opposition.Trancos sincorrect sa matter f law, California uleof Court8.216(bttl lspecif icaliy tateshat A combined nef . . . may nciude singlesummary f thesignif icantacts,"That s exactlywhatBalsam id.so hetormof Balsam's ombinedOpposition/Openingrief \\ 'as roper.-fheCLRA grants tandingo consumerso sue or varioitsvpes fmisleading dvertising.Under heplain anguage f the statute.hedefinitionof consumers nor imited o peoplewho actualiypurchasehe(allege


8/30

prevent t trom engagingn unlawfuladvertising an njunction hatsen'esthepublic nterest ar more han t benefitsBalsampersonally.

BrianNelson "Nelson"). rancos'ChiefExecutiveOfficer. estif iedthathewaspersonallynvolved n Trancos' nlawfulactions.The act hathedid so n hrs ole asa corporate tf icerof Trancos oes ot relieve imof personaliability. Corporate fficersmaynot be iable or theircompanies'wrongfulactsmerelybecauseheyarecorporate fficers.br-rttheyare iable or theiro)r:/? rongfulacts.Balsamdoesnot seekadditional emedies gainstNelson. ut ratheronly seekso hoidhirnjointlyandseverallyiablealongwithTrancosnc.

ThisCourtshould uie n Balsam'savoron theCLRA cause faction. ndhold BrianNelson ersonallyiableon the udgment or hisownunlawfulactions.

u. p_ISCUSSIONA. TrancosHad No Affirmatile Def'ensess o the CLRA Causeot 'Action

It cannotbe disputedhatTrancos'FirstAmendedAnswerhad i,''oaffirmative efenses. othof whichwereexpresslyar-qetedo the.lir.srcause f act ion or v iolat ionsf I l&P Code I 7519.*5.ppei lant 'sAppendix "AA") l:88-89. Defendantsever adan atfinnatir ' 'eefenseothesecond ause f action or vroiations f theCLRA - i.e.. hatBalsarnwasnot a conslrmer.hatBalsamwasnot damaged,r even hat hespamsdid notviolate heCLRA.

As such. rancos'entire efenseo theCLRA cause f action r,asimproper. otwithstandingts"law of thecase'argumentn rtsOppositionar35-37.

CnOSS.APPELLANT'SEPLY OCROSS.RNSPONNENT'SPPOSITIONOCROSS.APPELLANT'SPTXNCBNTET


9/30

$, . TheLanzuage f the CLRA is Unambiguous.nd t GoesAgainstTrancosBalsam grees ithTrancos' tatementshat he anguagef the

CLR.As unambiguous.ndBalsam grees rth he egal tandardthatacourtonly needso look at the egislative istory f the an-uua-uesambiguous.Opposition t 34-35. 9.

1. Seeks r AcsuiresanYGoodsor Services:ntendedHorvever,he anguage f theCLRA is unambiguousrl BaLsortt 's

fat,or.The CLRA defines consumer" s"an ndividualwho seeks racquires. y purchase r lease, rn.t' oodsor servicesor personal.amily.or householdurposes" ' iv ' Code$ 1761(d)emphasisddedl ' f rancosis thepartywhorefuseso acceptheplain anguagef thestatute tryingto rewrite t to replaceseeks racquires"with "seeks nd acqutes" i 'e..imposing purchaseequirement),nd o replacerlrtr '-eoodsr services"with "the spec'if icoocls r services llegedlyalsel,vdvertised." othingin Trancos'Oppositionelated ctVortl l terg'.Tri legiantCttrpororiort. l l5F. SLrpp.d 1082 N.D.CaI.2006) h:rngeshe act hat seeksor acquires"is ci isjunctive.o satisfying ither art of thestatutoryanguages sufficientto meet hedefinitionof "consumer."

Moreover.heprohibit ionset orth n theCLRA expressly pplv offansactions.uchasadvertisements.hatare intentledo resultor whichresult n thesaleor lease f goods r services." iv.Code$ 1770(a)(emphasisdded).The nclusion f thephraseintendedto result" sfundamentailyncompatiblevitha pr-rchaseequtrement. et.Trancosignoreshe"intended o result"phrase ltogether. ttemptingo forcearelianceequirementnto hestatutehatsimplydoesn't xist.

CnOSS.APPELLANT'SEPLYTOCROSS.RTSPOXOENT'SPPOSTTIONOCROSS.APPELLANT'SPENING NTNN


10/30

2. Suffers anyDamageFinally."Any consumer ho suffers /?r: amage"may bring a

CLRA cause f action.Civ. CodeS 1780(a)emphasisdded).Trancoswould ewrite hestatuteo requiremonetary amages..e..a purchaserequirement. ith no basis or doin_eo. Trancosgnores he act hat heCaliforniaLegislatureound anddeciaredhat he eceipr f spamcausesdamages.&P Code$ 17529(d) .e) , g), h).even f the ecipient oes otpurchasehe goodsor services dvertisedn the spam.

3. Legislatine or the ConsumerResolvesTrancos oldlyclaims n a conciusorymanner hat he statutorl'

languages unambi-cluousin its favor bututterly ails to provideanlanalysiso supporthatclaim. Opposition t 34-35. n contrast. alsam'sOpening rief and hisRepiy ookat heplain anguagef thestatute ndapply t to the nstantacts. Balsam lsomaintainshat he ansuasesunambiguous.ut since heParties renow arguing bout he anguage.tappearshatTrancos s attemptingo manufactureomearnbiguitl,'.

For that eason. nd o theextent hat hisCourtmight find an-'-ambiguityn the a nguage. alsarn roperl; 'referso James .Reed.Legi.slatingor TheCon,stuner:\n In.sitler.r'Analr'.ri.ro.f heCottsunter.sLesalRemetlies ct.2PectrtcL.J. (1911),whichcourts aveacknowledgeds an authoritativeource s o the egislatrvententbehind

. theCLRA. See .g.Fairbctnks, SuperiorCourt. 16Cal. lth56.61(2009t : ern' t ' .Arner icctn.rpre,ssubl i .s l t ing,r tc. . l -17 al .App. l th32-1.130 . . l th ist .2007).

Legislating or TheCons'umerotes t x8 that heCLRA mustbeliberally nterpretedo protect onsumers.nd f there s anv doubt n theinterpretationr application,ourtsmustdeciden consttnters'fat'or.

CnOSS.ApPELLANT'SEPLY OCROSS.RPSPONNENT'SPPOSITTONOCROSS.APPELI-ANT'OPENtriGNTET


11/30

LegislatingFor TheCons'umerlsonotes hat he Legisiatureexpresslyejected tiaudrequirement.ecauseal l thedifficulties nprovingcorrunonaw fraud wouldhavelcorrespondinglyiminishedheutri i tyof thestatute." d. at

x12. Er-eo. ince heLe-sislatureejectedfraud equirement. rancos anxotevadeiabilityunder he CLRA merelt'because alsam id notpurchasenyof thegoods r servicesalselyadvertised.C. Balsam Has Stand ine o Brins a CLRA Causeof Action

As discussedmmediatelybove.heCLRA is designedo protectconsumersbe.foreheyare njuredby purchasingalsely-advertisedoodsandservices.Balsam s a consumer. ursuanto thepiain anguage f thedefinit ion. ecausee seeks r acquires oods ndserr, ' icesn general. venif hedid not acquirehegoods ndservices rancos dvertised.ir '.CodeN1761(d). ecause rancosntendetlhat heemails t sent o Baisam esultrn hesaie f goods ndservices. iv.Code$ 1770(a).

L Trancos' Citationto Kleffman is MeritlessBecauseKleffmanM is n t e pre ed Schaue!As discussedn moredetail n Balsam'sOpening rief.Trancos'

reliance n Kle.ff inan'.Vonage loLdings orp..No.CV 07-2406GAF(JWJx) , 007U.S.D is t . EXIS10487 t *11 C.D.Ca l .May 23.1007)(order rantingmotion o dismiss), n unpublishedecision ot onpoirlt.for thepremisehat a spam ecipientwho doesnot purchase n)'thing , a aspamdoesnot havestanding nder heCLRA, is misplaced ecauseKle.'fJinaname o its holdingby misinterpreting cftauer'. VantlarinGern.sof Cal , , nc. .125Cal .App. l th9. t9. 60 . l thDist .2005.Nothing n Trancos'Opposition t38addresseshe act hat heSchauer ourtheld hatSchauer id nothavestanding nder heCLRA

CnOSS-AppELLANT'SEpLyTOCROSS-RnSpONoENT'SppOStuOx OCROSS-APPELLANT'SPBNNCBRME


12/30

becauseheatlyertisementw'asot directetl t her.but ratherat her iance.Similarly. n 2010.Set'idal '.TargerCorp. einJorcedhedistinction hattheKtqlfnuTr?ourtmissed. nd hatTrancos elieson.rvhen t held hatconslrmersouldnot bringa CLRA cause f actionnot becausehey$'erenot rrjured theywere njured butratherbecauseheydid not re hefalse abels.189Cal .App. l th905. 29 :l thDist . 0l0) . Trancos'OppositiongnoresSetlit,ul,nd ails o addresshedistinction hat Schauerwasnot the ecipientof the alseadvertisingmessages.ut KleffmanandBalsamwere.

Trancos' cidit ionalitation o VonGrrtlte .Spritt PC5.311F.Supp.2d 285, 303 S.D.Cal .1003)n i tsOpposi t iont 38 adds othingto its clefense.s Von Grabemerely epeatshe statutory efinitionof"consumer."

2. TrancosOffers ,lo Arsument to ContradictLeeislati','eFindings hat BalsamwqsDamasedbv ReceivinqTrancos'Soam. "Anv Damaqes"GivesBalsamStandingTheonlyremaining uestion s o standings whether alsamwas

clamaged. rancosmelodramaticallyiaims hatMet'et'r'.SprintSpec'trumLLP,45Cal . . { th 34 2009) soundshedeath nel l " or Baisarr i 'sLRAclaim. Opposition t41. Quite hecontrarv.Met'eraroserom a"preemptive" omplaint n whichno onealleged hctt /he tatlbeentloma,qed. ll that theMet,eropiniondid was ejectsuchpreemptivelawsuits, olding hata CLRA plaintiffmusthavesuffered rtl damagesohave tandrng.Meler aisoheid. n a SectionhatTrancos mits ,l 'hener,'ertcanancl everanaiyzes thatan l damagess broaderhanpecuniary'damases. d. at 6r+0-,11

Cnoss.ApPELLANT'SREPLYTO CROSS.RTSPOIVOENT'SPPOSITTONOCROSS.APPELI,ANT'SPBNTXC NMT


13/30

Met'er s consistent ith ,4ronv. U-HaulComparnoJCuliJontict,which held hatProposrtion 4 added "lostmoneyor propert\'"requirementor standin-qnderB&P Code$ 17200, ut rrot or standinsunder heCLRA. whichsti l l equired rn'damages.-13Cal.App. lth796.802 2dDist .1006).

This s where he 'rial Courterredasa matterof fact andof iau'.The Triai Courterredasa matterof t'actwhen rt statedhatBalsam

suffered o damages y receivingDefendants' pamand hat herecanbeno damages ithouta purchase. eporter's ranscript"RT") 70: 2-8'l: I .344:2-9. heCalifornia egislat.ureound hat he eceipt f spam ausesbillionsof dollarsof damageso Californians achvear,B&P Code5 17529(d).nd hatwas n 2003. (Damagesave ncreasedince hen. sthepercentagef email hat s spam. nd heabsolute mount f 'spam.have ncreased.) he eceipt f spam auses amagesust ike the eceiptof unk faxes.unk mail sentpostage-due.nd elemarketrngalls o a pay-per-minuteel lular hone.B&P Code$ 17529(e) .-st.h). NothrngnTrancos'Opposition venattemptso opposehis ndisputableoint...Trancosmerelv epeatedlvsserts. ith no basisn factor iaw. hatBalsan.r\ \asnotdamagedy reeeivingtsspams.r heTr ialCtrurt hould i r rcapplied egislativeindings as o thedamagesaused y spamt rom B&PCode 17529o theCLRA. for theCLRA

' To address rancos' oint n itsOpposition t-l;1hatBalsam ites asesin which leceptive CE s negatively iscussed.alsam ointsout hat heLegislativeindings s o thedarlages aused y spamss partof B&PCode$ 17529 referring o spam n getteral andnotpartof $ l7 529 5thatspecificaily rohibitsalseanddeceptire pamming.n otherwords.a// spam auses amages:eceptivepams a subset l al l spam.

CnOSS.AppELLANT'Snply TOCROSS.RTSpOxoENT'SppOStrtONOCROSS-APPELI,ANT'OPNTNCBNNT


14/30

shallbe iberaliyconstrued ndapplied o promote tsunderlying urposes, hich are o protect onsumers galnstunfair anddeceptive usiness ractices nd o provideefficientandeconomical rocedureso secure uchprotect ion.

Crv,Code 1760.And theTrial Courterredasa matterof law when t statedhat or

CLRA standing,You have o havea resultingmonetary amage."RT78:7-8.TheTrialCourtmisinterpretedheplain angua-eef Met'er. sshou,n y its facially ncorrect itation o Met'er or thepremrsehat"Plaintiffmusthavesustained omemonett^' implic'tttionaused y thedefendant'siolation f the aw. . ." AA I :210n.1 The Supreme ourttnMet'erstated xactly heopposite:hata CLRA piaintiffdoesnolhave oshowmonetary amages. ut ratheranl damages. hich arebroader hanactut.tl amages. ri .

Trancos latantlymisquotes alsarnn its Opposition t+3-i- l r lhenit claims hatBalsam tateshatSteroidHormoneProdLrct rt.re.r.81Cal,App. lth 1.+52dDist.2010)does ot equire ama-ees.alsam aidnothing f thesort. Rather. alsam aid hatSteroit lHonnoneProductCasesollowedMet'erwhen t held hata CLRA actiondoesnot requireac'tualmonetary) amages.tl. at 156.

And Trancosw'i l l ful lymisseshepointof Balsarn's itation o Doet ' .AOL LLC,No.C 06-5866 BA.2010U.S.Dist .LEXIS68859 t xl0-11(N.D.Cal.June22.201,0).Thepointof thecitations thata person anbedamaged.br purposesf CLRA standing. ithoutspending one\ outotoocket.

CnOSS.AppELLANT'Snpry TOCROSS-ReSpONoENT'SppOStrtONOCROSS.APPELLANT'SPENING RTgT'


15/30

3. There s No PreemptionDefense o Balsam's Cross-AppealIn its Opposition t -14-.15,rancos lides nto an rrelevant

discussion boutpreemption. ut this s a redherring. By its o'uvn lainlanguage.heCAN-SPAM Actnev'er reemptsheCLRA.becauseheCLRA s notspec i f i co emai l . ee 5 u 's ' c ' $ 7707(b) ( l ) (A)" Th isAct shallnotbeconstruedo preemptheappitcabil i ty'of (A) Stateari 'sthatare notspecifico electronit 'mail.nclurdingtaterespass.ontract. rtort aw. .") (emphasisdded).See lsoPov;ers'.Potter-t 'Barnnc'.- l lCal .App. l th 1039, 041 4thDist .2009):

CAN-SPAMdoes otpreempt tateaws hat arenotspeci f ico electronic ai l . " 15U.S. , 7707(b) /21.)ecauseSong-Beverly] is not n anymanner pecific o e-marl,weconclude ong-Beverlys notpreemptedy CAN-SPAM.

Like theSong-Beverlvct. theCLRA is not specif ico emarlanddoes otevenmention mail. Therefore.heCAN-SPAMAct doesnotandcarulotpreempt he CLRA. Trancosmay attempto argue ederalpreemption sits defensen its own appeal n theBusiness Professionsode 17519.5cause f action. ut hepreemptionefenseasno place n Balsam cross-appealor theCLRA cause f action.1. BalsamDoes ,lot NeeDoesNot SeekMonetarv Relief [Jnder he CLRA

Finally.asdiscussedn detail n Balsam'sOpening rief.Annttn:iato '. Machinesnc. discussineheCLRA andB&P Code$$ 17200 nd1500 held hat

there s a e-sit imateasis or requirins eliance ndcausationvr,hereheplaintiff ;eeksmonetar)' enefit.Thesameneeddoes otexistwhen heprincipal enefit f statutoryenforcement.venwhenundertaken y a single ndir dualnon-classepresentativelaintiff. s protection f thepLrblic.

Cnoss-AppELLANT'sEpLy o CRoss-RnspoNoENT'spposlrtoNToCROSS.APPELT,ANT'OPENINGBNTCT.

10


16/30

-102r.Supp. d 1133. 137 C.D.Cal .2005).As Baisam asmade lear .he s not seeking monetary enefitunder heCLRA. oniy an njunction oensurehatTrancos oesnot harm hepublicat largeby returning o itstrnlarvful racticesn the uture.

iVloreover.ecauseheCLRA uses reasonableerson tandard.Consunter tlvoc'cttes. Echostar atell i te orp.. l3 Cal.App.-lth 1351.1360 2dDist.2003).Balsam oes otneed o proveor evenalle-uehathewas nisled. nly hata reasonableersonmightbe misled.

Amazingly Trcutcos ccuses alsctm f disregardinghe statutorvlaneuage f theCLRA. Opposition t 50. Balsam oes othing f thesort:Balsam otes hat hestatutoryanguage f Civil Code$ 1780 tateshat"An)' consumerwho suff'e rs ny damage" s he esultof actsprohibited v$ 1770 asstandingo bringa CLRA cause f action.As above. alsamsr-rfteredamage y receiving pams entby Trancos.SeeB&P Code$ 17529(d) .e) . g) , h) . Tranco, ;s heparty isregardingheplainlanguage,y attemptingo forcea purchase/relianceequirementnto hestatutew'hen o such equirement xists. \Ien houghLegi.sLutinqor TlteConsumereports hat he Legislature peciticallyejected common-la''itraud i.e.. eliance)equirement.C. The SpamsViolated the CLRA in Multiple Wavs

1. Civil Code i 1770(at(2)Civil Code 1770(aX2)rohibitsmi;representinghesource f

goodsandservices.Trancos rivately egisteredts domain ames. eliberatelyailed o

registerts f ictit ious usinessanleUSAProductsOnlineeven hough tkneu' t had o register BNs and rctt ' o register BNs).RA 9-10.RT-148:16-20.150:16-21.15- l :11-15.ndclaimedtsaddresso be a box at a

Cnoss-AppELLANT'sEPLyo CRoss-Rrspoi',{IENT'sppostrtoNoCROSS.APPELI-ANT'OPEXTNCNTPE

1 l


17/30

branchof The UPSStore and egisteringor thatbox usingan unregisteredfictitrous usinessame n violation f TheUPSStore's ontract ndU.S.Postal orm1563), A 1:213-20.A 3: ,136-87.T 222.16-223.21.hus.Trancosmisrepresentedhe ruesource f the spams.

The Trial Courtalready rade indin,es f fact hatTrancos ooksteps o ensure hat hepubliccouldnot dentifll t.

Defendant rivatelye-qisterstsdomain ames ndusesDomainsBv Proxi,' o hat eferenceo that Whoisqueries]by members f thepublic vouldnot reveal he rueowner ofthedomain ame.AA i :2l l -12.Defendant rancos ntentionaily ndertook fforts o impaira[spam] ecipient's bil i ty o identify,ocate. r respondo itas he nit iator f theemail.and hat t intendedo hide tseltfrom dentif icationy recipients s hesender.AA 1 ))9.Trancos ntentionally ndatfirmativeiy stablishedracticesandprocedureso avoidall humancontact. void heabilityof members f thepubiic o contact rancos irectly o stopthe sending f emails" ndavoidmembers f thepublicerenknov' i r tg hoactual ly ent heemai ls. ' \ , \ 1: l3 l -13.

And Balsam estrf iedhat heprivate esisrratitrn.nregisteredfictit ious usinessame. ndclaimed ddresst TheUPSStore ctualiy / ir iprevent im from dentifying rancos s hesource f the spams.RT 337.

Trancosepeatedlylaims hatL/SAProductsOnline.comnd tsotherdomain ameswere validlyregistered."t simply sn't rue. Privateregistration f lnternetdomainnames sed or spamming iolatesB&PCode$ 17529.5(a)(2),ecauset misrepresentsho owns hedomainnames sed o send hespams.Privateegistrationf lnternet omainnames sed or spamming lsovrolateshe ederalCAN-SPAMAct. 18U.S.C. 1037(aX4),d)(2).See lsoUniretl tcttes'.Kilbrit le.58.+ .3d1240. 259 9thCir. 2009).And Domains y Proxy nc .expressh'tates

Cnoss-AppELLANT'sEpLy o CRoss-RsspoNnENT'sppostrtoN oCROSS.APPELI,ANT'SPTNNC BRINT

t2


18/30

policy prohibiting he useof its private egistration ervicesor spammin_e.RT 94:5-96: 5.RA 49-52.For all these easons.rancos l,rdot "r, 'al idl l 'register" nyof its domain ames.Thus.Trancos' laim n its Oppositionat 11-48 hat it is undisputedhat heheader ontained validl;" egistereddomziin ame" s entrrelyalse. t is ren'muchdi.spuretl.

Trancos gainattemptso misleadhisCourt ntobelievinghatBalsam's laim s based n fancifuldomain ames.Opposition t-18--19.othat t can ook to KleJfmanor le-ea l upport.However. his s not thebasrsof Balsam's laim. Rather. alsam's laim s based nprivate e,qistrttt ictrt.not the anciful natureof the dornain ames.

Trancos lsoviolated l'710G)(2; ecauseeven f theeightFromNames PaidSurvey.Your Business. hristianDating,Your Promotion.BankWire TransferAvaiiable,DatingGeneric. ndJoinElite -misrepresenthe source f the spams:who the1,irereallv rom. As thefrial Court ound. heseFromNarnes

do not truly revealwho sent he email. l'hus thesenderinformation"from") s misrepresented.l l of these maiiscame rom Defendant rancos. utnoneof theemailsdisclosehis n theheaderor hebodyor theopt-out). . .The [] "senders"dentit iedn theheaders f theother evenemarls o not existor areotherwisenisrepresented],

AA l:231. Trancos idnot disputehis actual inding n its Opposition.norcould t. tor BrianNelson ouldn't ven dentify'headr,'ertisersasedon theFromNames.RT 302:26 301.2.

As discussedbove. alsam oes orneed o show eliance. ecausethestatute pplies o transacttonsnrendedo result n the saleor lease fgoods r services. iv. Code$ 1770(a), nduses reasonableersonstandard.

Cnoss-AppELLANT'sEpLy o CRoss-RrsponpENT'sppostrtoNoCROSS.APPELI-ANT'SPENINGBNTPT

13


19/30

2. Civil Code i 1770(a)(3)Cil ' i l Code$ 1770(aX3)rohibitsmisrepresentingheaffi |ation.

connection. r association ith . or ceftification y. another.BrianNelson estified t trial thatTrancos eversentunsoltcited

comrnercialmail.RT 259:17-18. 02:4-6. ut heTnal Court olrnd hatthecontract etween i-SpeedMediaandTrancos ontained opromisesor representationshat he ownersof the emailaddresseshat Hi-SpeedMediaprovided o Trancos ver qave irectconsent r any otherpermissiono send ommercial mails.AA I :221 RT '180: 1-'187:1lvloreover. alsam estified t trial that heemaiiswereunsolicited.RT3259 3214.391 24-25. 94: 0.Defendants lsomisrepresentedheiratfiliation/connection ithDomains y Proxy nc. n violat ion f Civi lCode 1770(a)(3) . omainsBy Proxypubliclysets ortha policyprohibit ingheuseof itsprivateregistrationervicesor domain lames sed br spammine.RT 94.5-96:15.RA 49-52. By usingDomainsBy Proxy nc. o privately eeisterheirdomainnames.DefendantsalseLyepresentedhat heyhad DomarnsBi 'Proxy's ermissiono use tsservicesor spamming.And w'hencontractingo useDomainsBy Proxy's rivate egistrationerr,ices.Trancos ailed o mention he act hat t rntendedo useDomarnsBy 'Proxy'sservicesor spamming. See aughertt,t'.,\trrcricartctttdavlotc,,rCo: .141CaI. pp. l th82-1.35 2dDist .1006) "al though ciaimmay'bestated nder heCLRA in termsconstitutingraudulent missions.o beactionableheomissionmustbe contraryo a representationctuall l ' ' adeby the defendant. r on omi,ssion;f'a.factltede.fentlottt'(t.\ tbligetl otl isclo.se"(emphasis dded).

CnosS.APPELLANT'SEPLY OCROSS.RTSPONNENT'SPPOSTTTONOCROSS-APPELLANT'SPENING NM

t4


20/30

Trancos'citedunpublishedederal uthority.Kovralsld' ',Hev'Lerr-Packard ompont .2011.S.D is t . EXIS;11337t x i6 (N.D Cal .Apr .15,2011), oesnot helpTrancos' osit ion.or thesimple easonhatTrancos lidhave eason o know that hevariousmisrepresentationsn thespamsweremisleading.Trancos ad eason o know thatBalsamdid notgive r direct onsento send im email. ecauserancos drnittedhat tacquiredhe istof emailaddressesormValueClick.RT 295:12-13.Trancos ad eason o know theprivately egrsteredomainnamesmisrepresentedhatTrancoswas he ruesource f the spams. ecausehatis thevery natureof private egistration. nd n fact he eason rancos sedprivate egistration.RT 240:20-212:9.6122-,462 .Trancos lsohad eason o know that heFromNamesu,eremisleading.ecause rianNelson ouldn't dentifyhisown advertisersbased n theFromNames.RT 302:26-301. (lf Nelson ouldnot dentifvtheadvertisers fter esearchin_uhe questionn preparationor trial. hisCourtcannot xpect mere ecipient f theemails o be abie o identifv headvertisers.) rancos ad easono know thatoneSr-rbjectine wasrnisleadingecause rianNelson ouldn't igureouthow to qetpaid55ju.;t or akinga sllrvev.RT at 2(i2.12-261:9.rancos ad easono knowthat dentifyingtselfas USAProductsOnline"asmisleading ecauseTrancos ever egisteredhe ictit ious usinessame "FBN").even houshi t knew t hud o register BNsand ov' to egister BNs. ecauset hadproper lyegisteredtherFBNs. RA 9-10,RT -148:6-20. 150: -21.-15'1:11- i5.rancos ad easono know hat la iming box at TheUPSStore s t sbusiness ddress asmisleading.articularlr, ',hent siened-rpfor the box using he unregisteredBN. n r,'iolation f The UPSStore'scontract ndU.S.Postal orm1563. A 1:213-20.A 3:-136-87.T

Cnoss-AppELLANT'snplv ro CRoss-Rpspol,loENT'sppostrtoN oCROSS.APPELLANT'SPENTNGNMT

l 5


21/30

222:16-223:21.otwithstanding rianNelson's aise estimony t triai thatTrancos adneverenterednto anycontracts sing heUSAProductsOnline.comame.RT 503 2-4.

As discussedbove. aisam oes zol eed o show eliance. ecausethe statute pplies o transactronsntenclerlo resuit n the saleor lease f_eoodsr services. iv.Code$ 1770(ai. nduses reasonableersonstandard.

J. Civil Code i 1770(a)(4\Civil Code$ 1770(a)(4)rohibitsmisrepresentinghegeo-eraphical

originof goods ndservices.Trancos laimed hat ts emailsoriginatedrom a box at TheUPSStore. A 1:213-20.3:-136-87.,hichs not rue. Trancos i-enedp for a

boxat TheUPSStorewhiledeceptiveiyvrit ing USAProductsOnline"an unregisteredictitiousbusiness ame in the"Cornpany" ine andthereby iolatedheUPSStore's ontract ndU.S.Postal -orm ,563. Al'.219-220.A 3:480-87. T 222:16-22321

Trancos laims hat heUPSStore oxwasa vaiidaddressor thereceipt f rnail.Opposition t53.andyetBrianNelson estif iedhathenever eceivedBalsam's nitial demandetter a letter ha t"should"har,'emadetsway o him. RT 281:8-20.

Finally.Balsam id not ask hat re eceive 2.500or Traneos'undisputediolation f &BP Cocle 17538.5. Thit Courtshould rder- "l t is unlawful n the saleor offering or saieof consumer oodsorservicesor anyperson onducting,nybusinessn thisstatewhichutihzes, . . a privatemaiibox eceiving ervice . . to fail to disclosehe egalnameunder vhichbtisinesss doneand . . the complete treet ddressi'omwhichbusinesss actually onductedn all advertisin,endpromotionalmaterials., , Any vrolation f theprovisions f thissections a

CNCISS.APPELLANT'SEPLY OCROSS.RPSPONOE:IT'SPPOSIUONOCROSS.APPELLANT'OPENTNCNITT

16


22/30

Trancos o pay the ine to theCountyof Los Angeles.where t deceptivelvcontractedor a box atThe UPSStore.

4. Civil Code r1770(at(5\ nd (at(9\Civil Code$ 1770(aX5.trohibitsepresentin-uhat eoodsnd

servicesavecharacteristicsr benetlts hich heydo not have.CiviiCodeq 1770(a)(9)rohibits dvertisingoods r sen'ices ith intent ot osell hemasadr,'ertised.

The Court ound.asa matterof fact. hat he SLrbiectine "Getpard5 Dollars or I survev"wasmisieading ecause

If one clickson theadvertisementor Surr,'e1ldventure. oudo not "getpaid5 dollarsor I survey." ndeed.'ouareobligatedo signup for three ffers. hen akemultiplesurveys ndhaveno guaranteef gettingpaidanythingby 'anyone or taking he survey. ndeedno one w'ho estifiedrvhoactually ried hewebsite ot paid or takinga survev.

A A 1 : 2 1 4 .Balsam ndhisexpertwitness udyHopelain licked he inks n the

spam o researchhe ruthfulnessor ack hereof) f theSubject ine.andwentas iu as hey couldbefore ealizing hat hey could lot se tpaid$5.7asr'or akinga survey... heyhad o "complete romotionai ffers" oo.R' I 339:24-340:6.65 0- 2. 4 - l -- l 6:25.Br ianNelson. rancos' EO.even estified hathe went hrough he e-uistrationrocess.ound hathehad o signup tor "inbox ewards." ndcouldnotreceive 5.7astor takinga survey.RT at 262:12-261:9.hus. rancos'claimhat here . tas oevidencehatBalsamwouidnotreceive 5withoutspending nvntone\'.Opposi t iont 55-56.s faise.misdemeanorunishabley imprisonmentn thecounty'ail notexceedingsix months, r by a fine not exceedin-9wo thousandii'e hundred ollars(52 ,500) ,r by bo th . "B&P Code 17538.5(a) .

Cnoss.ApPELLANT'SEPLY OCROSS.RPSPONOENT'SPPOSITTONOCROSS.APPELLANT'SPENING NTrT.

17


23/30

Trancos lso alselY laims nitselfstateshata person andeclineemailsays nything l thesort. AA

5. Civil Code r1770(a)(16\Civil Cocle 1770(aX6) prohibitsepresentinghat hesubject f a

transactionasbeensuppliedn accordancevitha prevtot-tsepresentatlonwhen t hasnot.

TheTrial Court oundasa matterof fact ha tBalsam presenteduncontradicterjvidencehat he l neverconsentedo receiveanl'oi theseeightemails romanyof thesources. . . a1d hat Baisam] adnopreexistingr current usinesselationship ith anyof theei-eht dl 'ertiserswhose roducts r services ere hesubject f theeighternails1"' AAI 2 1 3 . 3 0 .

Nevertheless.n eachandeveryspam. rancosfalsel-v)larmedhatBalsam ptedn to receivetsemai i .RT i27:5-15.However. ahfornia'sant i -spamawhasa "di rect onsent"equirement.&P Code$ 17-519'(d) 'Becauserancos cquiredts ist romValueClick. rancos new' ndhadreasono know hatBalsarr ever ave r direct onsento send im email 'RT 295:22-23.D . A nction is r v t o E hat Defe Do NotResumeTheir Unlawful Practices

Balsam asstandingo bring heCLRA cause f actlon. ndTrirncosvioiatedheCLRA. Wiil thisCourtgiveTrancosree eign o resumetsspamming ctivity'l

Balsam resented uthorityn his OpeningBrief. ncluding rom theU.S.Supreme ourt. hatacourtcan ssue n njunction here heres areasonabieossibil i tyhata defendant a\ resltmetsunlau'tul ctivltres.

its Opening riefat22 hat heemailthepromotronalffers.Nothingn the3: .136-39.

18CnOSS.ApPELLANT'Snprv TOCROSS'RnSpONnENT'SppOStnoN O

CROSS.APPELLANT'S OPETTNCBNTTT.


24/30

See, ,g.,LlnitedStates,. Concentrated hosphate .tportAssocicrtiorl.93U.S.199 1968). -lnited tates'. OregonStateMeclicaLocien.3'13U.S'326 1952).FerieralTradeComntission',AffbrdablevlediaLLC. 179F.3d1228 gthCir. 1999).In Concentratetlhosphc1e.heCourtnoted hat [H]erewe haveonly appellees' wn statementhat t wouidbeuneconomicalor them oengagen any urtheroint operations." 93U.S.at 103. This s e.\ctctl lTrancos'ustif icationor stopping pamrning it wasn'tprofitable.Appel lant 's pening r ief "AOB") 53.AA l :212.RT 29.1:18-13.155: i9-21. 'Ihe logical mpiication. arricularlyince rancos everadmittedhatevena single hing t did waseven l ightlymisleading.s thatTrancosreserveshe ight o resume pammin-e.ssoonas t cl in igureout how odo t profitably.

This s why theAffordableMedict ourtstatedhata defendant hovolunrari ly easestsunlawfulbehaviors sti l l subjecto an njunctionbecausehedefendantould esume tany ime. 179F.3dat 1137-38(citation mitted). lt is thedutyof thecourtso beware f efforts o defeatinjunctive eliefby protestationsf repentancend efttrm.especially 'henabanclonmenteemsimed o anticipate uit.and here s probabilityofresumption."OregonSrureMetlicalSocien', 43 U.S.at 333.

Evenassuminghe ruthof theclairn hatTrancos toppedspan-uningfor now - there s nothingat all to stopDefendantsromresumingheir unlawfulspamming ny ime heywish.

In its defense. rancos ites vl.T.Thorne . Honc'utDretlgittgCompcutt ' .13Cal .App.2d131 : ,3d ist ,19"11) .or heprernisehat Toauthorizehe ssuingof an njunction t shouldappeal i, th reasonablecertaintyhat hewrongfulacts vill becontinued r repeated." ndTrancos

CnOSS.APPELLANT'SNPIYTOCROSS.RNSPONNE:\T'SPPOSITIONOCROSS.APPELLANT'OPENING zuET

19


25/30

also itesNelsonv'.Pearson ord Co..186Cal.App.4th983.1020 'lthDist . 0l0t tbr hepremisehat .An njunct ionarurotssuen u racuumbase


26/30

liable or their o\,'n ortious onduct.See, .g.,Wtatt v'. Jnion\[orrgageCo.eta\ .24 Cal .3d113,785 1919) ci tat ionsmit ted) : ee lsoPeople ' ,PaciJic andmark LC.129CaLApp.4th1203. 215 2dDist .2005)(holding hata limited iability company'smanagefs not insulatedromliabil i ty or participationn tortious onductmerel,v ecauseheconductoccurswithin hescope nd oleasa manager).

BrianNelson laims n hisOppositionhat heonly actir, ' i t1'alsamin which Balsam laimsNelsonengageds theprivate egistration fcertain omain ames.Opposition t61. This s a faise tatement.

Nelson estif iedhathepersonallyegisteredfrancoslnc.'sdornainnames o be used or spamming nd hat hedomainnamesw'ere esisteredusing iscredi t ard.RT 221:4, 33:24-26.2362- 13.3 1 11-13. 16126-462:4. nd hathe agreedwith and atified he decision f an ndependentcontractoro privately egister omain ames. T -16l:l- l--162:J.uthea/.so tatedhathe wasasked o makedecisronsbout heemailadvertisinsproject hat esultedn thespams t ssuen thisAction. RT 311:))-26.Nelsona/so estified hathe was hepoint person .l'how'ouldbe contactedif thecompanyeceived certif iedetter omplainin-ubout pam.RT282:11-22. elson lsoadmittedhathewas nvolr, 'edn discussionsboutblack istsandcomplaintsegarding mailadvertising. T 300:7-12.310: 0- 7. Moreover. elson dmittedhathe was hesole ounder f thecompany. T 441 10- 3.and hatTrancos egan ending ommercialemailswhenTrancos nly empioyedhree eople.RT -l-12:20--t-1.1:19.

People '.Conw'at'heldhat hepresident f thecorporationu as na positiono control heactivit ies f the corporation]nd huscouldbeheid r iminal lyiable or alse dvert is ing."2 Cal .App.3d 875.886 ldDist. 197;1.Here.Trancos nly had hreemanagementersonnel hen t

CnOSS.APPELLANT'SEPLY OCROSS-RNSPONNENT,SPPOSITTONOCROSS-APPELLANT'SPENING NITT

2l


27/30

sent hespams t ssue o Balsam.AA 3:435.Nelsonwas andstrl l s) heChiefExecutiveOfficer. L/. Nelsonadmittedhatdespite is wite LaureMajcherczyk'sit leof chief operations fficer.rr l.. hewas eaiiv ustasalespersonndnot n operat ionaiontrol 'RT 312:3-6' 13: l -12' 112)-315:9,Theonlyotherofficer's it lewasSeniorVice President. rearit 'eSen,ices. A 3:-135.Who else ontrolled nd atif ied even f notexecuted theunlawfulemaiicampaign.f notNelson'l f Conway ouldbeheldcriminallt iable or falseadvertising.hensurely' elsonmeetshelowercivi l threshold. his Courtshould ind BrianNelson ersonail l 'liable or theactions e set n motion.

IV. NOTE REGARDING TRANCOS' OB.IECTIONSTOBALSAM'S PAGE CITATIONS AND REFERENCESTrancosmakesmuch n itsRepiyBrief or its Appeal. nd n its

Opposition rief o Baisam's ross-Appeal.boutBalsam's upposedlyimproper itationso rhe ecorcl.ndactually uggestshatBalsam houidlose heentire ppeal ue o such itations. rancoss ncorrect. \ttv suchcrtation rTors reBalsam'S ttorney'sault.not Baisam's. ndBalsamshouldnot suffer or his attorne)''s lrors. Mr . Walton s preparedo makea deciaration ursuanto Codeof Civil Procedure i73 atoral argument.

More o thepoint.Trancos ttemptso misleadheCourtas o whatBalsam ctually l id.For hemostpart.Balsamncluded tring itattonsotheJudgment r Complaintantl o testimony ndevidence. n somecases.Balsammerely eportecl hat he rial court ound.withoutactuall,'-elyingon the inding or purposes f theappeal.

ThisCourtshould otbesicletrackedy Trancos' ttempto focusattention way rom theactualmeritsof thedispute.

22CnOSS-A.ppELLANT'SEPLY OCROSS'RESpOxnENT'SppOStrtONO

CROSS.APPELLANT'OPENINGBNM '


28/30

V. CONCLUSIONFor the reasons tated erein. hisCourtshould ind that Baisam as

standingo bringa CLRA cause f action.and hat hespams t ssueviolated heCLRA. This Courtshouldorder heTrial Court o enioinTrancos rom such utureunlawfulspamming. ecause rancos asshowno signs f remorse nd ts vehement ppositiono an njunction ignalsthat t maywell resumets spamming ssoonas t thinks t cando soprofitably andwithoutgettingcau-eht). n injunctionserves hepublicinterest.

ThisCourtshouid lsoholdBrianNelson ersonailyiable orTrancos'unlawfulactions.n which hepersonally articipated.

LAW OFFICES F TIMOTHY WALTON

Dated: Aucus t 9 . 011 /s/ T imothr J, \ \ -a l tonTimothyJ.WaitonAttorneys or Piaintiff.Respondent.ndCross-Appellant

Cnoss-AppELLANT'sEpLyo CRoss-RrspoNpE\r'sppostrtoNoCROSS.APPELLANT'SPENING NTEN

23


29/30

CERTIFICATEOF WORDCOUNT(California ules f Court.Rule8.204(cXl)

The extof thisbriefconsists f 6.232words. xcludingables ndthiscertif icate.scounted y theMrcrosoftWord1003wordprocessin-eprogram sed o generatehe brief.

Dated: Ausust19.2011 /si TimothvJ. WaltonTimothyJ.WaltonAttorneys br Plaintiff.Respondent.ndCross-Appeilant

CNOSS.APPELLANT'SEPLY o CRoSS.RrspoNoENT'SpposlrloNToCROSS.APPELLANT'SPENING RIET

24


30/30

PROOF OF SERVICE AND DELIVERYI. CathyRiley.declarehat:

i am at east 8 yearsof ageandnot a part,vo theabove-entitledact ion.My businessddresss- fheLaw Otf ices f DanielBalsam.31+5GearyBlvd.#225.SanFrancisco. A 9'11 8.

I servedhe oregoing ROSS-APPELLANT'S EPLYTOCROSS-RESPONDENT'SPPOSITIONO CROSS-APPELLANT'SOPENINGBRIEFonAugust19.2011by deposi t ingcopy hereofn asealed nvelope ith theU.S.Postal ervice. ith thepostageullyprepaid. ddressedo thepersonsisted elow:o RobertNeison.Nelson& Weinkauf. 5 N{itcheil lvd..Suite15.SanRafael , A 94903o Clerkof theSuperior ourtof San vlateo ounty Attn:Hon.Marie S.Weiner), 100 ountyCenter. edw'ood ity.CA94063r ;\ppellateCoordinator Officeof the r\ttorneyGeneral.Consumer aw Section 0f) q SnrinuSrrssl. os Angeles.c A 9 0 0 1 3o DistrictAttorneyof SanMateoCounty. 100CountyCenter.

3rdFloor.RedwoodCitv.CA 94063I served text-searchableDFcopyof thebriefon theCairfornia

Supreme ourtby uploadinghebrief o theSupreme ourt's ebsrte(http /wrvw.courtinlo. a.gov/courts/courtsofappeai/appbrifs. m onA u g u s t 9 . 0 1 1 .

I declare nderpenaltyof perjuryunder he awsof theState fCalifornia hat he oregoing s trueandcorrect.Executedhis 19thda1' fAugust. 011at SanFrancisco, alifornia.

/s/CathvRilevCathyRiley