Case 3:21-cv-00976-CRB Document 13 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 4
`
`Peter R Afrasiabi (SBN 193336)
`pafrasiabi@onellp.com
`ONE LLP
`4000 MacArthur Blvd.
`East Tower, Suite 500
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: (949) 502-2870
`Facsimile: (949) 258-5081
`John E. Lord (SBN 216111)
`jlord@onellp.com
`ONE LLP
`9301 Wilshire Blvd.
`Penthouse Suite
`Beverly Hills, CA 90210
`Telephone: (310) 866-5157
`Facsimile: (310) 943-2085
`Maximillian N. Amster (PHV to be applied for)
`max@bayadvocacy.com
`Samuel J. Salario, Jr. (PHV to be applied for)
`sam@bayadvocacy.com
`BAY ADVOCACY PLLC
`1700 South Mac Dill Avenue
`Tampa, FL 33629
`Telephone: (813) 251-6262
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
`K.W., a minor through K.W.’s guardian, Jillian Williams,
`and Jillian Williams, individually, on behalf of themselves
`and all others similarly situated
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORINIA
`K.W., a minor and through K.W.’s guardian,
`Jillian Williams; and JILLIAN WILLIAMS,
`individually, on behalf of themselves and all
`others similarly situated,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Case No. 3:21-cv-00976-CRB
`L.R. 3-12 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
`TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES
`SHOULD BE RELATED
`Complaint Filed: February 8, 2021
`
`vs.
`EPIC GAMES, INC., a Maryland corporation,
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 3:21-cv-00976
`MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00976-CRB Document 13 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 4
`
`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
`
`Plaintiffs K.W., a minor, by and through K.W.’s guardian Jillian Williams, and Plaintiff
`Jillian Williams individually (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) in this case respectfully request the Court
`find their case to be related to closed Case No. 4:19-cv-3629-YGR, styled C.W., a minor, by and
`through his guardian, Rebecca White, etc. v. Epic Games, Inc., (the “Prior Action”) under Civil
`L.R. 3-12. An action is related to another when:
`(1) The actions concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event; and
`(2) It appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and
`expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different Judges.
`Civil L.R. 3-12.
`In every respect that matters to the efficient management of judicial resources, this case and
`the Prior Action are identical. This case is a proposed class action brought on behalf of K.W., a
`minor, and K.W.’s parent, against Epic Games, Inc. in which Plaintiffs allege that Epic Games
`misleads and manipulates minors into making purchases of virtual items and game content in the
`game Fortnite. (Compl., Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 10-55). The complaint asserts, among other things, counts
`seeking a declaration regarding a minor’s rights to disaffirm contracts with Epic Games, for
`violations of California Business and Professional Code § 17200, and for negligent
`misrepresentation. (Id. at Counts I, III, IV, V). The Prior Action, which was voluntarily dismissed
`last month, was likewise a proposed class action brought on behalf of C.W., a minor, against Epic
`Games in which C.W. alleged that Epic Games misleads and manipulates minors into making
`purchases of virtual items and game content in the game Fortnite. (Prior Action Am. Compl., Dkt.
`56, ¶¶ 11-63). The amended complaint in the Prior Action asserted, among other things, counts
`seeking a declaration regarding a minor’s rights to disaffirm contracts with Epic Games, for
`violations of California Business and Professional Code § 17200, and for negligent
`misrepresentation. (Id. at Counts I, IV, V). This action seeks, and the Prior Action sought,
`certification of national and California classes of minor plaintiffs. (Compare Compl., Dkt. 1, ¶ 56
`with Prior Action Am. Compl., Dkt. 56, ¶¶ 67-68). Plaintiffs’ co-counsel (One LLP) and defense
`counsel (Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP) in this case also represented the named plaintiff and
`
`Case No. 3:21-cv-00976
`1
`MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00976-CRB Document 13 Filed 02/16/21 Page 3 of 4
`
`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
`
`Epic Games, respectively, in the Prior Action.1 Thus, the two actions concern substantially the
`same parties, property, transaction, or events.
`Furthermore, there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and an unnecessary
`risk of conflicting results if this case is assigned to a different judge. Before the Prior Action was
`voluntarily dismissed, the presiding judge ruled on multiple motions directed to the legal
`sufficiency of the pleadings, whether C.W.’s claims were required to be arbitrated, whether venue
`was proper in this court, and whether the action should be transferred to a different judicial district
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). (See Prior Action Order (1) Denying Motion To Compel Arbitration or
`Transfer; (2) Granting In Part And Denying In Part Motion To Dismiss; (3) Granting Motion To
`Compel Compliance With F.R.C.P. 10(A), Dkt. 54; Order Granting In Part And Denying In Part
`Motion To Dismiss, Dkt. 59). Those issues were resolved substantially in favor of C.W. and the
`plaintiff class. A new judge will have to work to learn the operative facts and analyze the applicable
`law to resolve similar issues in this case. The presiding judge in the Prior Action has already done
`that work. Furthermore, a new judge may resolve identical issues affecting an identical plaintiff
`class in this case differently from the presiding judge in the Prior Action, creating inconsistent
`results affecting the same members of a class of minor plaintiffs.
`Although Epic Games has not yet appeared in this action, we have consulted with its
`counsel, who states that Epic Games opposes this motion. We expect—but do not know—that Epic
`Games will highlight that the complaint in this case is not a precise copycat of the amended
`complaint in the Prior Action or suggest that it has changed its arrangements with consumers in
`ways that it thinks make a difference. We acknowledge that there will be some differences between
`this action and the Prior Action. Nothing is static. But the important point for purposes of a
`determination of relatedness is this: In those respects that matter, the two cases are essentially the
`same. The involve the same class of plaintiffs, the same sets of facts and transactions, the same
`kinds of legal claims, and the same kinds of requested relief. If assigned to the presiding judge in
`
`1 Although One LLP represented the named plaintiff in the Prior Action, it played no part in
`the decision to voluntarily dismiss it. That decision was made by the named plaintiff after a former
`partner of One LLP joined a different firm and the named plaintiff became represented by that firm.
`(See Prior Action, Dkt. 89).
`Case No. 3:21-cv-00976
`2
`MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00976-CRB Document 13 Filed 02/16/21 Page 4 of 4
`
`the Prior Action, pretrial rulings and proceedings can build upon work already done. Having the
`case decided by the presiding judge in the Prior Action thus saves resources and avoids inconsistent
`results. Having the case decided by a different judge, in contrast, does not.
`
`Dated: February 16, 2021
`
`ONE LLP
`By: /s/ John E. Lord
`Peter R. Afrasiabi
`John E. Lord
`BAY ADVOCACY PLLC
`Maximillian N. Amster (PHV to be applied for)
`Samuel J. Salario, Jr. (PHV to be applied for)
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
`K.W., a minor through K.W.’s guardian, Jillian
`Williams, and Jillian Williams, individually, on
`behalf of themselves and all others similarly
`situated
`
`Case No. 3:21-cv-00976
`3
`MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`
`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
`
`