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