throbber
Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 83 Filed 02/05/21 Page 1 of 36 Page ID #:622
`
`Moez M. Kaba, State Bar No. 257456
`mkaba@hueston.com
`Ashley Artmann, State Bar No. 319374
`aartmann@hueston.com
`HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP
`523 West 6th Street, Suite 400
`Los Angeles, CA 90014
`Telephone: (213) 788-4340
`Facsimile:
`(888) 775-0898
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Ring LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No. 2:19-CV-10899
`
`DEFENDANT RING LLC’S NOTICE
`OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`COMPEL ARBITRATION AND
`STAY LITIGATION
`
`Date:
`March 22, 2021
`Time:
`10:00 a.m.
`Courtroom: 5A
`
`
`In re Ring LLC Privacy Litigation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This document relates to all cases.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`5896854
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 83 Filed 02/05/21 Page 2 of 36 Page ID #:623
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 22, 2021, at 10:00 am, or as soon
`thereafter as may be heard, in Courtroom 5A of the above-entitled Court, located in
`the United States Courthouse, 350 West First Street, California 90012, Defendant Ring
`LLC will and hereby does move, pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 4, for an order compelling
`Plaintiffs Ashley LeMay, et al. (“Plaintiffs”) to submit their claims to individual
`arbitration and staying litigation.
`This Motion is made on the grounds that each Plaintiff must arbitrate his or her
`claims pursuant to a valid, enforceable agreement to arbitrate contained in Ring’s
`Terms of Service, to which each Plaintiff agreed or is bound under contract and agency
`principles or the doctrine of equitable estoppel. Further, the arbitration agreement
`mandates that each Plaintiff pursue his or her claims on an individual, rather than class
`or collective, basis. Finally, the agreement clearly and unmistakably delegates
`questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Therefore, each and every Plaintiff’s claims
`must be submitted to binding, individual arbitration. See Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer
`& White Sales, 139 S. Ct. 524, 530 (2019).
`This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, Memorandum of Points and
`Authorities, and the Declarations of John Modestine and Ashley Artmann filed
`herewith, all pleadings and papers filed in this action, and such other matters as may
`be presented to the Court at the time of or before the hearing.
`This motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7-3
`which took place on January 29, 2021.
`Dated: February 5, 2021
`HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP
`
`
`By:
`Moez M. Kaba
`Attorneys for Defendant Ring LLC
`
`- 2 -
`DEFENDANT RING LLC’S NONTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND
`STAY LITIGATION
`
`
`5896854
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 83 Filed 02/05/21 Page 3 of 36 Page ID #:624
`
`Moez M. Kaba, State Bar No. 257456
`mkaba@hueston.com
`Ashley Artmann, State Bar No. 319374
`aartmann@hueston.com
`HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP
`523 West 6th Street, Suite 400
`Los Angeles, CA 90014
`Telephone: (213) 788-4340
`Facsimile:
`(888) 775-0898
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Ring LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No. 2:19-CV-10899
`
`DEFENDANT RING LLC’S
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION TO COMPEL
`ARBITRATION AND STAY
`LITIGATION
`
`Date:
`March 22, 2021
`Time:
`10:00 a.m.
`Courtroom: 5A
`
`
`In re Ring LLC Privacy Litigation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This document relates to all cases.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`5897131
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 83 Filed 02/05/21 Page 4 of 36 Page ID #:625
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
` INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
` BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 3
`A.
`Each Plaintiff Purchased a Ring Product, Created a Ring
`Account, and/or Used Ring’s Services .................................................. 3
`Ring Users Consent to The Terms Through Purchase and
`Use of Ring Products and By Registering for a Ring
`Account .................................................................................................. 4
`Ring’s Terms Require Individual Arbitration for All
`Disputes Arising Out of or Related to Ring’s Products or
`Services .................................................................................................. 6
`III. LEGAL STANDARD ...................................................................................... 9
`IV. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................. 10
`A.
`The Signatory Plaintiffs are Bound by Ring’s Terms .......................... 10
`1.
`The Signatory Plaintiffs Agreed to Ring’s Terms By
`Purchasing and Using Their Ring Products ............................... 10
`The Signatory Plaintiffs Agreed to Ring’s Terms By
`Creating a Ring Account ........................................................... 12
`Fifteen Signatory Plaintiffs’ Continued Use of Ring
`Products Constitutes Agreement to the Terms .......................... 14
`The Non-Signatory Plaintiffs are Bound by Ring’s Terms ................. 15
`1.
`The Non-Signatory Plaintiffs Must Arbitrate
`Because Their Guardians, The Signatory Plaintiffs,
`Agreed on Their Behalf to Arbitrate Claims Against
`Ring ............................................................................................ 15
`The Non-Signatory Plaintiffs are Bound by Ring’s
`Terms Based on Their Preexisting Relationship with
`a Signatory Plaintiff ................................................................... 17
`The Non-Signatory Plaintiffs are Bound by Ring’s
`Terms Under The Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel .................... 18
`Plaintiffs Can Only Proceed in Individual Arbitration ........................ 22
`Issues of Arbitrability Are Delegated to the Arbitrator ....................... 23
`Plaintiffs’ Arbitration Agreement Encompasses Their
`Claims................................................................................................... 24
`- i -
`DEFENDANT RING LLC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO COMPEL
`ARBITRATION AND STAY LITIGATION
`
`C.
`D.
`E.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`5897131
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 83 Filed 02/05/21 Page 5 of 36 Page ID #:626
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
`
`Page
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 25
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`- ii -
`DEFENDANT RING LLC’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`5897131
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 83 Filed 02/05/21 Page 6 of 36 Page ID #:627
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Cases
`Am. Bureau of Shipping v. Tencara Shipyard S.P.A.,
`170 F.3d 349 (2d Cir. 1999) ........................................................................... 20
`Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest.,
`570 U.S. 228 (2013) ................................................................................. 22, 23
`Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Lacelaw Corp.,
`861 F.2d 224 (9th Cir. 1988) .......................................................................... 14
`AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion,
`563 U.S. 333 (2011) ......................................................................................... 9
`Burris v. Discover Bank,
`2019 WL 9516076 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2019) ............................................... 25
`Carvajal v. Garden Fresh Rest. Corp.,
`2014 WL 12607682 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2014) .............................................. 23
`Chan v. Charter Commc’ns Holding Co.,
`2015 WL 12655701 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2015) ............................................... 18
`Chau v. Pre-Paid Legal Servs., Inc.,
`2017 WL 604721 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2017) ............................................ 12
`Comer v. Micor, Inc.,
`436 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2006) .................................................................. 15, 19
`Cox v. Ocean View Hotel Corp.,
`533 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 9
`Cty. of Contra Costa v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc.,
`47 Cal. App. 4th 237 (1996) ................................................................. 2, 15, 18
`Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd,
`470 U.S. 213 (1985) ......................................................................................... 9
`Dickey v. Ticketmaster LLC,
`2019 WL 9096443 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2019) ............................................... 10
`
`- iii -
`DEFENDANT RING LLC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO COMPEL
`ARBITRATION AND STAY LITIGATION
`
`
`5897131
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 83 Filed 02/05/21 Page 7 of 36 Page ID #:628
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont.)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Div. Six Sports, Inc. v. Levi Strauss Asia Pac. Div. PTE. Ltd.,
`
`2017 WL 7080047 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2017).......................................... 24, 25
`Dohrmann v. Intuit, Inc.,
`823 F. App’x 482 (9th Cir. 2020) ................................................................... 12
`Doyle v. Giuliucci,
`401 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1965) ................................................................................ 2, 17
`Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis,
`138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018) ................................................................................... 23
`Exigen Props., Inc. v. Genesys Telecomms. Labs., Inc.,
`2016 WL 520283 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2016) .............................................. 19
`Fadal Machining Centers, LLC v. Compumachine, Inc.,
`461 F. App’x 630 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................................... 24
`First Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan,
`514 U.S. 938 (1995) ....................................................................................... 10
`Hansen v. Ticketmaster Entm't, Inc.,
`2020 WL 7319358 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2020) ................................... 3, 5, 8, 13
`Hart v. Charter Commc’ns, Inc.,
`814 F. App’x 211 (9th Cir. 2020) ............................................................. 11, 15
`Hawkins v. Superior Court,
`89 Cal. App. 3d 413 (1979) ............................................................................ 17
`Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer and White Sales, Inc.,
`139 S. Ct. 524 (2019). .............................................................................. 23, 24
`Hofer v. Emley,
`2019 WL 4575389 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2019)..................................... 2, 19, 21
`Hohe v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist.,
`224 Cal. App. 3d 1559 (1990) ........................................................................ 17
`In re Samsung Galaxy Smartphone Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig.,
`298 F. Supp. 3d 1285 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ..................................................... 1, 11
`
`- iv -
`DEFENDANT RING LLC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO COMPEL
`ARBITRATION AND STAY LITIGATION
`
`
`5897131
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 83 Filed 02/05/21 Page 8 of 36 Page ID #:629
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont.)
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Verisign, Inc., Derivative Litig.,
`
`531 F. Supp. 2d 1173 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ......................................................... 15
`Jenks v. DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP,
`243 Cal. App. 4th 1 (2015) ....................................................................... 15, 16
`Karla Maree v. Deutsche Lufthansa AG,
`2021 WL 267853, (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2021) .................................................. 13
`Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela,
`139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019) ................................................................................... 23
`Lee v. Ticketmaster LLC,
`817 F. App’x 393 (9th Cir. 2020) ................................................... 2, 10, 11, 12
`LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C. v. LegalZoom.com, Inc.,
`2018 WL 1730333 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2018) ............................................... 14
`Link v. Wabash R. Co.,
`370 U.S. 626 (1962) ....................................................................................... 15
`Makarowski v. AT & T Mobility, LLC,
`2009 WL 1765661 (C.D. Cal. June 18, 2009)................................................ 25
`Marcario v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc.,
`2017 WL 4792238 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2017) ................................................ 14
`Meyer v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`868 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2017) ............................................................................. 13
`Mohamed v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`848 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2016) ........................................................................ 24
`Momot v. Mastro,
`652 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 24
`Montoya v. Comcast Corp.,
`2016 WL 5340651 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2016) ................................... 19, 21, 22
`Mortensen v. Bresnan Commc’ns, LLC,
`722 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2013) ........................................................................ 10
`
`- v -
`DEFENDANT RING LLC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO COMPEL
`ARBITRATION AND STAY LITIGATION
`
`
`5897131
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 83 Filed 02/05/21 Page 9 of 36 Page ID #:630
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont.)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp.,
`
`460 U.S. 1 (1983) ....................................................................................... 9, 25
`Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc.,
`763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) ...................................................... 10, 11, 19, 21
`Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`815 F. App’x 612 (2d Cir. 2020) ................................................................ 2, 15
`NORCAL Mutual Ins. Co. v. Newton,
`84 Cal. App. 4th 64 (2000) ............................................................................. 19
`Payne v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`2018 WL 4489275 (D.S.C. July 25, 2018) ..................................................... 22
`Peter v. DoorDash, Inc.,
`445 F. Supp. 3d 580 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ................................................. 3, 10, 13
`Peters v. Amazon Servs., LLC,
`669 F. App’x 487 (9th Cir. 2016) ................................................................... 15
`Raebel v. Tesla, Inc.,
`451 F. Supp. 3d 1183 (D. Nev. 2020) ............................................................ 14
`Serrano v. Macys W. Stores, Inc.,
`2020 WL 6083439 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2020) .................................................. 23
`Tice v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`2020 WL 1625782 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2020) ............................................... 18
`Wash. Mut. Fin. Grp., LLC v. Bailey,
`364 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 22
`Wofford v. Apple Inc.,
`2012 WL 1431216 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2012) ................................................ 21
`Statutes
`9 U.S.C. § 3 ............................................................................................................... 26
`9 U.S.C. § 4 ................................................................................................................. 9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`- vi -
`DEFENDANT RING LLC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO COMPEL
`ARBITRATION AND STAY LITIGATION
`
`
`5897131
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 83 Filed 02/05/21 Page 10 of 36 Page ID #:631
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont.)
`
`Page(s)
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1638 ............................................................................................... 16
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(d) .......................................................................................... 21
`Cal. Com. Code § 2204(1) ........................................................................................ 11
`Cal. Prob. Code § 2351 ....................................................................................... 17, 18
`California Constitution, Art. 1 § 1 .............................................................................. 4
`Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15-14-314(1) ................................................................. 17, 18
`Rules
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 ...................................................................................................... 17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`- vii -
`DEFENDANT RING LLC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO COMPEL
`ARBITRATION AND STAY LITIGATION
`
`
`5897131
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 83 Filed 02/05/21 Page 11 of 36 Page ID #:632
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiffs in this case allege that Defendant Ring LLC (“Ring”) is liable to them
`for hacks of their Ring accounts and devices perpetrated by outside bad actors and,
`separately, for sharing personal identifying information with third parties without
`authorization or consent. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Consolidated Class Action
`Complaint (“FAC”) necessarily pleads that each Plaintiff either purchased a Ring
`device and/or opened a Ring account (Dkt. 69 (FAC) ¶¶ 6, 40-41, 58-59, 75-77, 99-
`103, 118, 120-21, 133, 136-37, 151, 153-55, 168, 170, 176, 181, 187, 192, 194-95,
`199-200, 203-05, 221-23, 230-32, 238, 240, 248-49, 252, 254-55, 265, 267, 282, 284-
`86, 341, 344-46, 348-49, 352-53, 356, 358-59, 363), or that someone in their
`immediate family purchased and used the Ring devices and opened the Ring accounts
`that led to the alleged events giving rise to this suit (id. ¶¶ 41-42, 55, 58, 65-66, 68, 70,
`75-77, 95-96, 136, 153-55, 206, 218, 254-56, 263, 265, 267, 281-82). Plaintiffs’
`claims are without merit, but, at this stage, Ring seeks only to compel Plaintiffs to
`abide by the agreements they entered or by which they are bound. Specifically, each
`Plaintiff should be compelled to arbitrate his or her claims individually pursuant to
`Ring’s Terms of Service (the “Terms”).
`As to the 28 Plaintiffs who assert claims against Ring directly (the “Signatory
`Plaintiffs”), they are bound by Ring’s Terms for multiple, independent reasons. First,
`they purchased and used their Ring products after being notified on the products’
`exterior packaging that such acts would bind them. See In re Samsung Galaxy, 298 F.
`Supp. 3d 1285, 1294–97 (N.D. Cal. 2018). Second, they agreed for a second time to
`Ring’s Terms when creating a Ring account. In order to use a Ring device, a user must
`download the Ring app and create a Ring account to set up the device and access
`Ring’s services. As part of this process, Ring provides users with a hyperlink to the
`full Terms, gives them a chance to review the Terms, and requires users to
`affirmatively assent to its Terms to complete account registration. See Lee v.
`- 1 -
`
`DEFENDANT RING LLC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO COMPEL
`ARBITRATION AND STAY LITIGATION
`
`
`5897131
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 83 Filed 02/05/21 Page 12 of 36 Page ID #:633
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Ticketmaster LLC, 817 F. App’x 393, 395 (9th Cir. 2020). Third, 15 of the Signatory
`
`Plaintiffs (and their 8 Plaintiff children) continued using their Ring devices after Ring
`expressly identified the arbitration term in the course of this litigation. See Nicosia v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., 815 F. App’x 612, 614 (2d Cir. 2020).
`The remaining 13 Plaintiffs, who assert claims through their guardians (the
`“Non-Signatory Plaintiffs”), are bound by Ring’s Terms because each used and
`received Ring’s services via their families’ Ring devices, for which at least one
`Signatory Plaintiff agreed to Ring’s Terms. The Non-Signatory Plaintiffs are bound
`by the Terms based on: (a) a Signatory Plaintiff’s agreement to arbitrate disputes
`between authorized users and Ring, see Doyle v. Giuliucci, 401 P.2d 1, 3 (Cal. 1965),
`(b) their preexisting intimate family relationship with a Signatory Plaintiff who agreed
`to the Terms, see Cty. of Contra Costa v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 47 Cal.
`App. 4th 237, 242 (1996), and (c) the doctrine of equitable estoppel, see Hofer v.
`Emley, 2019 WL 4575389, at *6-7 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2019).
`The Terms, in turn, contain a binding, clear and valid arbitration agreement,
`stating that “any dispute, controversy, or claim arising out of, or relating to” any
`Plaintiff’s use of Ring’s products and services or “any relationship between” a Plaintiff
`and Ring is subject to mandatory arbitration. (Decl. of John Modestine in support of
`Motion to Compel Arbitration (“Modestine Decl.”), Ex. G (“August 2018 Terms”) at
`16.)1
` The Terms further provide
`that “ANY DISPUTE RESOLUTION
`PROCEEDINGS WILL BE CONDUCTED ONLY ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS
`AND NOT IN A CLASS [or] REPRESENTATIVE . . . ACTION.” (Id. at 17.) The
`Terms also clearly and unmistakably delegate the threshold issues of arbitrability to an
`arbitrator. (Id. at 18.) Even if the Court addressed arbitrability, all Plaintiffs’ claims
`clearly fall within the broad scope of disputes that must be arbitrated. (Id. at 16.)
`
`1 Most Plaintiffs agreed to the version of the Terms effective August 1, 2018, but the
`relevant terms of the arbitration agreement have been identical or substantially the
`same over the time period at issue, unless otherwise noted.
`- 2 -
`DEFENDANT RING LLC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO COMPEL
`ARBITRATION AND STAY LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`5897131
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 83 Filed 02/05/21 Page 13 of 36 Page ID #:634
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`The Court should therefore stay this action and order each and every Plaintiff to
`
`proceed in individual arbitration. See, e.g., Peter v. DoorDash, Inc., 445 F. Supp. 3d
`580, 585-87 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (compelling arbitration and staying action based on
`plaintiff’s assent to arbitration agreement during account sign up process); Hansen v.
`Ticketmaster Entm’t, Inc., 2020 WL 7319358, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2020)
`(compelling individual arbitration and staying action based on plaintiff’s assent to
`arbitration agreement when signing in to online account).
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. Each Plaintiff Purchased a Ring Product, Created a Ring Account,
`and/or Used Ring’s Services2
`The 28 Signatory Plaintiffs3 purchased and used at least one Ring product in
`their home between July 2017 and December 2019. These Plaintiffs also created or
`possessed a Ring account to set-up and/or use their Ring device(s). Additionally, the
`Balls, Browns, Norrises, Politis, Slades, Tillmans, Ms. Pantoja, and Mr. Powell
`purchased a “Ring Protect Plan.” Fifteen of the Signatory Plaintiffs continued using
`at least one Ring device as of February 5, 2021. (See Modestine Decl. ¶¶ 49-75.)
`Eleven (11) of the Signatory Plaintiffs also assert claims against Ring as parents
`and/or guardians for 13 other Plaintiffs (12 minor children and one parent,
`Ms. McKiernan). (See FAC at 1.) Plaintiffs refer to the 12 minor Plaintiffs and
`Ms. McKiernan (the Non-Signatory Plaintiffs) as members of the “Hacked Families”
`and treat the Ring devices and services in each family’s home as collectively owned
`and used by the relevant Signatory Plaintiffs and Non-Signatory Plaintiffs. (See id. at
`
`2 For reference, Ring provides a chart showing how each Plaintiff assented to Ring’s
`Terms and citing the relevant evidence and cases from this motion. (See Appendix A.)
`3 Plaintiffs group
`themselves
`into
`two groups–“Hacked Families” and
`“Purchaser/Accountholder Plaintiffs”–but Ring refers to the 28 Plaintiffs asserting
`claims directly against Ring as the “Signatory Plaintiffs” and the Plaintiffs who assert
`claims through a guardian as the “Non-Signatory Plaintiffs” for purposes of this
`motion. (FAC ¶¶ 6, 10.)
`
`- 3 -
`DEFENDANT RING LLC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO COMPEL
`ARBITRATION AND STAY LITIGATION
`
`
`5897131
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 83 Filed 02/05/21 Page 14 of 36 Page ID #:635
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`¶ 6 (“The Hacked Families all purchased Ring’s indoor security devices intending to
`
`protect their homes and feel safer.”), ¶ 488 (“the devices belonging to the Hacked
`Families”); id. ¶¶ 76, 195, 240, 255 (certain Plaintiffs purchased Ring devices “for
`their family”); see also id. ¶¶ 7, 171, 403, 406, 409, 438.)
`All Plaintiffs assert seven causes of action against Ring for negligence, violation
`of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), breach of implied contract, invasion
`of privacy and violation of the California Constitution, Art. 1 § 1, violation of
`California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), and breach of the implied
`warranty of merchantability. The “Hacked Families” Plaintiffs also assert a separate
`cause of action for invasion of privacy and violation of the California Constitution,
`Art. 1 § 1. Besides this separate claim, all Plaintiffs uniformly assert their causes of
`action on behalf of “Plaintiffs” as an undifferentiated group. Plaintiffs consistently
`refer to themselves as purchasers and owners of Ring devices, as Ring account holders,
`as using and receiving Ring’s services, and as Ring customers throughout the FAC and
`specifically in each cause of action.4 Indeed, Plaintiffs’ entire case is predicated on
`the allegation that they owned, used, and created accounts to operate Ring devices
`which were allegedly hacked and from which Ring allegedly collected and disclosed
`personal information. Their claims and alleged injuries entirely depend on their status
`as Ring’s “customers.” (See FAC ¶ 1 (“This case addresses Ring’s egregious failure
`to provide the safety and security it ostensibly promises its customers…”); id. ¶¶ 3-4.)
`B. Ring Users Consent to The Terms Through Purchase and Use of
`Ring Products and By Registering for a Ring Account
`At all times relevant to each Plaintiff’s allegations, all Ring Video Doorbell and
`camera product boxes have displayed clear and conspicuous text stating that purchase
`and use of the product is subject to Ring’s Terms and identifying the website at which
`
`
`4 See, e.g., FAC ¶¶ 10, 75, 384, 407-8, 411, 420, 422, 436, 438, 444, 447, 449, 461,
`464, 466, 469-70, 477, 479, 490, 492, 500, 509, 511-13, 523-25.
`- 4 -
`DEFENDANT RING LLC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO COMPEL
`ARBITRATION AND STAY LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`5897131
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 83 Filed 02/05/21 Page 15 of 36 Page ID #:636
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`the Terms can be viewed. (Modestine Decl. ¶ 4-5, Ex. A.) Specifically, the exterior
`
`packaging of Ring Video Doorbells and camera products produced from 2017 through
`August 2020 stated either that “[u]se of the product is subject to your registration with
`Ring and your agreement to the Terms of Service found at www.ring.com” or that
`“[u]se of the product is subject to your registration with Ring and your agreement to
`the Terms of Service found at www.ring.com/terms.” (Id.)
`In order to set up and use any Ring device, a user is required to download the
`Ring mobile application (“Ring app”) and register for a Ring account through the Ring
`app or Ring website. (Id. ¶¶ 21-25.) During the time period in which the Signatory
`Plaintiffs created their Ring accounts, to complete the account registration process via
`the Ring app the user was required to affirmatively assent to Ring’s Terms. (Id. ¶¶ 26-
`35.) From May 2017 until June 2018, a user was required to check a box during the
`account registration process to indicate agreement to the Terms before moving on to
`the next step of the registration process. (Id. ¶¶ 26-27, Ex. L (May 2017-Nov. 2017:
`“I agree to Ring’s Privacy Notice, Terms of Service, and Guidelines for Installation
`and Use.”); id. ¶¶ 28-29, Ex. M (Nov. 2017-June 2018: “I agree to Ring’s Privacy
`Notice and Terms of Services.” [sic]).) From June 2018 through January 2020, a user
`was required to create a password at the last step of the account registration process,
`and was notified that by completing account registration they agreed to the Terms. (Id.
`¶¶ 30, 32, Exs. N, O (June 2018-May 2019: “By signing up, you agree to our Terms
`of Service”); id. ¶¶ 34, Ex. P (May 2019-Jan. 2020: “By continuing you agree to Ring’s
`Terms of Service.”).) The user was then required to click a button that appeared below
`the text notifying the user that by continuing with account registration, the user
`indicated assent to the Terms. (Id. ¶¶ 31, 33, 35.) Each of the above-described pages
`provided a prominent hyperlink which, if clicked, directed the user to a new webpage
`containing the Terms. (Id. ¶¶ 26, 28, 30, 32, 34.)
`A user can also register for a Ring account via Ring’s website and is required to
`affirmatively assent to the Terms during that account registration process as well.
`- 5 -
`
`DEFENDANT RING LLC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO COMPEL
`ARBITRATION AND STAY LITIGATION
`
`
`5897131
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 83 Filed 02/05/21 Page 16 of 36 Page ID #:637
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`(Modestine Decl. ¶ 24.) From February 2018 until April 2019, a user was required to
`
`check a box during the website account registration process to indicate agreement to
`the Terms before moving on to the next step of the registration process. (Id. ¶¶ 36-37,
`Ex. Q.) From April 2019 through January 2020, a user was required to click a “Create
`Account” button directly below which appeared the text “By continuing you agree to
`Ring’s Terms of Service.” (Id. ¶¶ 38-39, Ex. R.) Each of the above-described pages
`provided a prominent hyperlink which, if clicked, directed the user to a new webpage
`containing the Terms. (Id. ¶¶ 36, 38.).5
`A Ring user was also required to affirmatively assent to the Terms when
`purchasing a Ring Protect Plan any time after May 2018, or changing the method of
`payment on their account page. (Id. ¶¶ 40-43, Exs. S, T, U.)
`C. Ring’s Terms Require Individual Arbitration for All Disputes
`Arising Out of or Related to Ring’s Products or Services
`As relevant to this motion, the Ring Terms and the arbitration agreement
`contained therein have been substantially the same during the time period in which the
`Plaintiffs purchased and used their Ring products and created Ring accounts. (August
`2018 Terms at 15-19; see Modestine Decl. ¶¶ 6-20, Exs. B at 10-13, C at 11-14, D at
`11-14, E at 10-13, F at 15-19, H at 11-14, I at 12-14, J at 15-19, K at 12-15.) The
`Terms state, at least five times, that Ring device users are subject to binding arbitration.
`The Terms also make clear that the arbitration will be on an individual, not class basis.
`Binding Arbitration & Class Waiver: From August 18, 2017 onwards, the very
`first line of the Terms, which appears even before the title, has stated prominently:
`
`
`
`
`
`5 If users do not agree to the Terms, they can return the product within 30 days for a
`full refund of the product price. (August 2018 Terms at 7; see Modestine Decl. ¶ 19,
`Exs. B at 6-7, C at 7, D at 7, E at 7, F at 9, H at 7, I at 8, J at 10, K at 8.)
`- 6 -
`DEFENDANT RING LLC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITI

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket