Case 3:21-cv-01427-LB Document 23 Filed 05/04/21 Page 1 of 29
`
`
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`Shon Morgan (Bar No. 187736)
`
`shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com
`Yury Kapgan (Bar No. 218366)
`
`yurykapgan@quinnemanuel.com
`Viola Trebicka (Bar No. 269526)
`
`violatrebicka@quinnemanuel.com
`David C. Armillei (Bar No. 284267)
`davidarmillei@quinnemanuel.com
`865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90017-2543
`Telephone:
`(213) 443-3000
`Facsimile:
`(213) 443-3100
`
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`Behnam Dayanim (appearance pro hac vice)
`bdayanim@paulhastings.com
`2050 M Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`Telephone:
`(202) 551-1700
`Facsimile:
`(202) 551-1705
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Zynga Inc.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`MICHAEL OWENS, JENNIE PLUMLEY,
`JON SCHWEITZER, CHARLIE FINLAY,
`AND MELISSA IRELAN, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`ZYNGA INC., a Delaware corporation,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
` CASE No. 3:21-cv-01427-LB
`
`
`DEFENDANT ZYNGA INC.’S NOTICE
`OF MOTIONS AND MOTIONS TO
`COMPEL ARBITRATION, STAY
`PROCEEDINGS, AND STRIKE
`PLAINTIFFS’ CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`MEMORANDUM AND POINTS OF
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`DECLARATION OF ANDREA COURANT
`
`DECLARATION OF JESSUP FERRIS
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`June 10, 2021
`Date:
`9:30 a.m.
`Time:
`Hon. Laurel Beeler
`Judge:
`Courtroom: B
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
`
`
`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 No. 3:21-cv-01427-LB
`
`MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, STAY PROCEEDINGS, AND STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01427-LB Document 23 Filed 05/04/21 Page 2 of 29
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on June 10, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as
`
`counsel may be heard, defendant Zynga Inc. (“Zynga”), by and through its attorneys, will and
`
`hereby does make the following motions:
`
`1.
`
`Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration and Stay Proceedings
`
`Pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 4, Zynga moves for an order compelling the individual arbitration
`
`of the First Cause of Action (Violation of California Unfair Competition Law – Unlawful Prong),
`
`Second Cause of Action (Violation of California Unfair Competition Law – Unfair Prong), and
`
`Third Cause of Action (Violation of California Unfair Competition Law – Fraudulent Prong)
`
`brought by plaintiffs Michael Owens, Jennie Plumley, Jon Schweitzer, Charlie Finlay, and Melissa
`
`Irelan pursuant to valid agreements mandating individual arbitrations for their claims. Related to
`
`this motion, Zynga also seeks a stay of the proceedings before this Court pending resolution of the
`
`arbitrations pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 3, and further seeks a stay of such proceedings pending a
`
`decision on its motion to compel arbitration.
`
`2.
`
`Motion to Strike
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), Zynga further moves to strike the class
`
`and collective actions claims and allegations in plaintiffs’ First Amended Class Action Complaint
`
`[Dkt. No. 14], specifically:
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`(4)
`
`(5)
`
`(6)
`
`(7)
`
`(8)
`
`Cover page, “CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT”;
`
`Every page, footer reading “Class Action Complaint”;
`
`Paragraph 5, “and other users”;
`
`Paragraph 10, “and is a class action in which one or more members of the proposed
`
`class are citizens of a state different from any one of the Defendants”;
`
`Paragraph 19, “and a class of similarly situated consumers”;
`
`Paragraph 144, in its entirety;
`
`Paragraphs 201 to 212, in their entirety;
`
`Paragraph 217, “and class members”;
`
`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 No. 3:21-cv-01427-LB
`-1-
`MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, STAY PROCEEDINGS, AND STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01427-LB Document 23 Filed 05/04/21 Page 3 of 29
`
`
`
`(9)
`
`Paragraph 218, “and the class” (in multiple sentences);
`
`(10) Paragraph 219, “and the class”;
`
`(11) Paragraph 221, “and the class”;
`
`(12) Paragraph 230, “and the class” (in multiple sentences);
`
`(13) Paragraph 231, “and the class”;
`
`(14) Paragraph 233, “and the class”;
`
`(15) Paragraph 234, “and the class”;
`
`(16) Paragraph 239, “and the class”;
`
`(17) Paragraph 240, “and the class” (in multiple sentences);
`
`(18) Paragraph 241, “and the class”;
`
`(19) Paragraph 243, “and the class”;
`
`(20) Prayer for Relief (a) (“an order certifying the asserted claims, or issues raised, as a
`
`class action”) and (b) (“and the proposed class”); and,
`
`(21) Any other class and/or collective action allegation appearing in the First Amended
`
`Class Action Complaint and not identified above.
`
`This motion is based upon this Notice, the following memorandum of points and
`
`authorities, the Declaration of Andrea Courant (“Courant Decl.”) and exhibit thereto, the
`
`Declaration of Jessup Ferris (“Ferris Decl.”), the pleadings and records on file herein, on such
`
`other and further argument and evidence as may be presented at the time of the hearing, and all
`
`matters of which this Court may take judicial notice.
`
`
`DATED: May 4, 2021
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`
`
`By
`Shon Morgan
`Attorneys for Zynga Inc.
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:21-cv-01427-LB
`-2-
`MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, STAY PROCEEDINGS, AND STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`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-01427-LB Document 23 Filed 05/04/21 Page 4 of 29
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................................1
`
`BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Purported Class Action ..............................................................................1
`
`Plaintiffs Agreed to Arbitrate and to Assert Claims Individually ..............................3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs Expressly Agreed to Zynga’s Terms of Service .............................3
`
`Zynga’s Terms of Service Include an Arbitration Agreement and
`Class Action Waiver .......................................................................................4
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................7
`
`ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................................8
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs Agreed to Arbitrate Their Claims ...............................................................8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Parties’ Arbitration Agreements Are Valid and Enforceable .................8
`
`The Arbitration Agreements Cover Plaintiffs’ Claims ................................12
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Claims Cannot Proceed on a Class Basis ................................................13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Each Plaintiff Waived the Right to Assert Any Claim on a Group
`Basis .............................................................................................................13
`
`The Arbitration Agreements Do Not Inhibit Plaintiffs’ Ability to
`Seek a Public Injunction in Court ................................................................15
`
`C.
`
`This Action Should Be Immediately Stayed Pending a Ruling on This
`Motion and Resolution of the Arbitrations ..............................................................17
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................20
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`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 No. 3:21-cv-01427-LB
`-i-
`MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, STAY PROCEEDINGS, AND STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01427-LB Document 23 Filed 05/04/21 Page 5 of 29
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page
`
`Acad. of Mot. Picture Arts & Sci. v. GoDaddy, Inc.,
` No. CV 10-3738-AB(CWx), 2015 WL 12697732 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2015) ................. 2, 3
`
`Am. Express v. Italian Colors Rest.,
` 570 U.S. 228 (2013) ........................................................................................................... 14
`
`Amirhamzeh v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
` 14-cv-02123-VC, 2014 WL 12610227 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2014) ..................................... 13
`
`Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Serv., Inc.,
` 24 Cal. 4th 83 (2000) .......................................................................................................... 12
`
`AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion,
` 563 U.S. 333 (2011) ........................................................................................................... 14
`
`AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc’ns Workers of Am.,
` 475 U.S. 643 (1986) ............................................................................................................. 7
`
`Belton v. Comcast Cable Hldgs., LLC,
` 151 Cal. App. 4th 1224 (2007) ........................................................................................... 11
`
`Bischoff v. DirectTV, Inc.,
` 180 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (C.D. Cal. 2002) .............................................................................. 19
`
`Blair v. Rent-A-Ctr., Inc.,
` 928 F.3d 819 (9th Cir. 2019) .............................................................................................. 16
`
`Borgonia v. G2 Secure Staff, LLC,
` No. 19-cv-00914-LB, 2019 WL 1865927 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2019) ................................ 10
`
`Colvin v. NASDAQ OMX Grp., Inc.,
` No. 15-cv-02078-EMC, 2015 WL 6735292 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2015).............................. 12
`
`Cayanan v. Citi Hldgs., Inc.,
` 928 F. Supp. 2d 1182 (S.D. Cal. 2013) .............................................................................. 13
`
`Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc.,
` 207 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) .............................................................................................. 8
`
`Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Ahmed,
` 283 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2002) ............................................................................................ 12
`
`Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Najd,
` 294 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2002) ............................................................................................ 12
`
`Clifford v. Quest Software Inc.,
` 38 Cal. App. 5th 745 (2019) ............................................................................................... 19
`
`Cordas v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
` 228 F. Supp. 3d 985 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ............................................................................... 10
`
`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 No. 3:21-cv-01427-LB
`-ii-
`MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, STAY PROCEEDINGS, AND STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01427-LB Document 23 Filed 05/04/21 Page 6 of 29
`
`
`
`Crawford v. Beachbody, LLC,
` No. 14-cv-1583-GPC(KSC), 2014 WL 6606563 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2014) ....................... 10
`
`Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd,
` 470 U.S. 213 (1985) ............................................................................................... 13, 17, 18
`
`Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Super. Ct.,
` 211 Cal. App. 3d 758 (1989) .............................................................................................. 13
`
`Dohrmann v. Intuit, Inc.,
` 823 F. App’x 482 (9th Cir. 2020) ......................................................................................... 9
`
`Dornaus v. Best Buy Co., Inc.,
` No. 18-cv-04085-PJH, 2019 WL 632957 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14 2019) ................................. 19
`
`Galaxia Elecs. Co. v. Luxmax, U.S.A.,
` No. LA CV 16-05144 JAK(GJSx), 2017 WL 11566394 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2017) ......... 18
`
`Hansen v. Ticketmaster Entm’t,
` No. 20-cv-02685-EMC, 2020 WL 7319358 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2020) ........................ 9, 10
`
`Hughes v. S.A.W. Entm’t, Ltd.,
` No. 16-cv-03371-LB et al., 2019 WL 2060769 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2019) ......................... 19
`
`In re Complaint of Hornbeck Offshore (1984) Corp.,
` 981 F.2d 752 (9th Cir. 1993) .............................................................................................. 17
`
`In re Holl,
` 925 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2019) .............................................................................................. 9
`
`Iskanian v. CLS Transp. L.A., LLC,
` 59 Cal. 4th 348 (2014) ........................................................................................................ 14
`
`Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale’s, Inc.,
` 755 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................... 12, 14
`
`Johnson v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
` No. EDCV 17-2477 JGB(SPx), 2018 WL 4726042 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2018) ............... 17
`
`Jones v. Deutsche Bank AG,
` No. C 04-5357 JW(RS), 2007 WL 951811 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2007) ............................. 18
`
`Jones v. Wells Fargo Bank,
` 112 Cal. App. 4th 1527 (2003) ........................................................................................... 11
`
`Kilgore v. KeyBank, Nat’l Ass’n,
` 718 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................................ 11
`
`Kim v. Tinder, Inc.,
` No. CV 18-03093 JFW(AS), 2018 WL 6694923 (C.D. Cal. July 12, 2018) ....................... 8
`
`Knepper v. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.,
` No. 8:19-cv-00060-JVS-ADS, 2019 WL 1449502 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2019) ................. 19
`
`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 No. 3:21-cv-01427-LB
`-iii-
`MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, STAY PROCEEDINGS, AND STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01427-LB Document 23 Filed 05/04/21 Page 7 of 29
`
`
`
`Laver v. Credit Suisse Sec. (USA), LLC,
` 976 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2020) .............................................................................................. 14
`
`Lee v. Postmates Inc.,
` No. 18-cv-03421-JCS, 2018 WL 4961802 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2018) ............................... 16
`
`Lee v. Ticketmaster L.L.C.,
` 817 F. App’x 393 (9th Cir. 2020) ......................................................................................... 9
`
`Little v. City of Seattle,
` 863 F.2d 681 (9th Cir. 1989) .............................................................................................. 18
`
`Macias v. Excel Bldg. Servs., LLC,
` 767 F. Supp. 2d 1002 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ............................................................................... 3
`
`Magana v. DoorDash, Inc.,
` 343 F. Supp. 3d 891 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ............................................................................... 16
`
`Mahamedi IP Law, LLP v. Paradice & Li, LLP,
` 5:16-cv-02805-EJD, 2017 WL 2727874 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2017) .................................. 18
`
`Mance v. Mercedes-Benz USA,
` 901 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ............................................................................. 11
`
`McGill v. Citibank, N.A.,
` 2 Cal. 5th 945 (2017) ........................................................................................ 15, 16, 17, 18
`
`Meyer v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
` 868 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................. 10
`
`Morris v. Redwood Empire Bancorp,
` 128 Cal. App. 4th 1305 (2005) ........................................................................................... 11
`
`Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp.,
` 460 U.S. 1 (1983) ................................................................................................................. 7
`
`Nat’l Rural Telecomm. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc.,
` 319 F. Supp. 2d 1059 (C.D. Cal. 2003) .............................................................................. 13
`
`Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc.,
` 763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................ 17
`
`Paramount Farms, Inc. v. Ventilex B.V.,
` No. CV F 08-1027 LJO SMS, 2009 WL 161052 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2009) ...................... 18
`
`Peterson v. Lyft, Inc.,
` No. 16-cv-07343-LB, 2018 WL 6047085 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2018) ........................... 8, 17
`
`Pinnacle Museum Tower Ass’n v. Pinnacle Mkt. Dev. (US), LLC,
` 55 Cal. 4th 223 (2012) ........................................................................................................ 11
`
`Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.,
` 388 U.S. 395 (1967) ............................................................................................................. 8
`
`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 No. 3:21-cv-01427-LB
`-iv-
`MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, STAY PROCEEDINGS, AND STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01427-LB Document 23 Filed 05/04/21 Page 8 of 29
`
`
`
`Pryner v. Tractor Supply Co.,
` 109 F.3d 354 (7th Cir. 1997) .............................................................................................. 19
`
`Rogers v. Lyft, Inc.,
` 452 F. Supp. 3d 904 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ............................................................................... 15
`
`Rose v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
` 57 Cal. 4th 390 (2013) ........................................................................................................ 13
`
`Sanchez v. Valencia Hldg. Co., LLC,
` 61 Cal. 4th 899 (2015) ........................................................................................................ 11
`
`Sanders v. Apple Inc.,
` 672 F. Supp. 2d 978 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ............................................................................... 15
`
`Sheppard v. Staffmark Inv., LLC,
` No. 20-cv-05443-BLF, 2021 WL 690260 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2021) ................................ 14
`
`Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc.,
` 175 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 1999) .............................................................................................. 13
`
`Smith v. Kan. Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys.,
` No. 18-2340-CM-KGS, 2019 WL 339542 (D. Kan. Jan. 28, 2019) .................................... 8
`
`Sponheim v. Citibank, N.A.,
` SACV 19-264 JVS (ADSx), 2019 WL 2498938 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2019) ..................... 17
`
`Stiener v. Apple Computer, Inc.,
` No. C 07-4486 SBA, 2007 WL 4219388 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2007) ................................ 18
`
`Stockman-Sann v. McKnight,
` No. SACV 12-1882 AG(JPRx), 2013 WL 8284817 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2013) ................. 3
`
`Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp.,
` 559 U.S. 662 (2010) ........................................................................................................... 14
`
`Stover v. Experian Hldgs., Inc.,
` 978 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................ 16
`
`Swift v. Zynga Game Network, Inc.,
` 805 F. Supp. 2d 904 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ......................................................................... 10, 11
`
`Yu v. Volt Info. Sci., Inc.,
` No. 19-cv-01981-LB, 2019 WL 3503111 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2019) ................................. 12
`
`Zhang v. Super Ct.,
` 57 Cal. 4th 364 (2013) ........................................................................................................ 13
`
`Statutory Authorities
`
`9 U.S.C. § 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 7
`
`9 U.S.C. § 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 7
`
`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 No. 3:21-cv-01427-LB
`-v-
`MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, STAY PROCEEDINGS, AND STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01427-LB Document 23 Filed 05/04/21 Page 9 of 29
`
`
`
`9 U.S.C. § 3 ................................................................................................................................. 8, 17
`
`9 U.S.C. § 4 ..................................................................................................................................... 17
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 ........................................................................................................ 2
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1589 ....................................................................................................................... 8
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1605 ..................................................................................................................... 12
`
`Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.4 ......................................................................................................... 18
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) .................................................................................................................... 1, 15
`
`Rules and Regulations
`
`
`
`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 No. 3:21-cv-01427-LB
`-vi-
`MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, STAY PROCEEDINGS, AND STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01427-LB Document 23 Filed 05/04/21 Page 10 of 29
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Plaintiffs bring this purported class action under California’s Unfair Competition Law
`
`challenging Zynga Inc.’s so-called “social slots” videogames. There is no merit to their claims
`
`because, among other reasons, the games do not constitute illegal slot machines or gambling under
`
`the predicate statutes plaintiffs invoke. But this Court need not reach the substantive issues
`
`because each plaintiff agreed to arbitrate such disputes.
`
`Before beginning gameplay, each plaintiff expressly agreed to arbitrate “any claims arising
`
`out of, relating to, or in connection with . . . Zynga’s Services,” “under any legal theory,” “to the
`
`fullest extent permitted by law.” The arbitration provisions are conspicuous and fair, and were
`
`reached through a process and on substantive terms that courts have consistently held must be
`
`enforced to effectuate the Federal Arbitration Act.
`
`Plaintiffs also unambiguously agreed they could only bring claims “on an individual
`
`basis,” and not “as a plaintiff or class member in a class action, consolidated action, or
`
`representative action.” Courts consistently enforce similar provisions; thus, the Court should
`
`strike plaintiffs’ class action allegations.
`
`Although the arbitration agreements reserve requests for injunctive relief to the Court, the
`
`FAA mandates that court proceedings be stayed pending resolution of the arbitration. The Court
`
`should immediately stay plaintiffs’ action pending resolution of Zynga’s motion to compel
`
`arbitration, as is routine to promote judicial economy, avoid unnecessary party expenditures, and
`
`prevent inconsistent rulings.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Purported Class Action
`
`Zynga is a leading social game developer, headquartered in San Francisco, California. See
`
`First Am. Class Action Compl. (“FAC”) ¶ 1. It develops, owns, markets, and operates popular
`
`videogames enjoyed by millions of people around the world—including FarmVille, Harry Potter
`
`Puzzles & Spells, and CSR Racing 2. Id. ¶ 11. Zynga’s games are available on mobile platforms,
`
`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 No. 3:21-cv-01427-LB
`-1-
`MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, STAY PROCEEDINGS, AND STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01427-LB Document 23 Filed 05/04/21 Page 11 of 29
`
`
`
`such as Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android, as well as social networking platforms, such as
`
`Facebook and Snapchat. Id.
`
`Plaintiffs are residents of Florida, South Carolina, New York, and California who claim to
`
`have spent money on “in-app” purchases of credits (which they call “virtual coins”) in various
`
`videogames offered by Zynga. Id. ¶¶ 6-10, 120, 146-200. Plaintiffs allege these paid-for credits
`
`allowed them to continue gameplay after they used the free credits provided by Zynga. Id. Four
`
`plaintiffs (Owens, Plumley, Schweitzer, and Finlay) allegedly played Zynga’s Wizard of Oz Slots,
`
`Games of Thrones Slots Casino, and/or Black Diamond Casino between 2020 and 2021. Id.
`
`¶¶ 148, 155-158, 167, 179-181. While another plaintiff (Irelan) alleges playing five Zynga
`
`games—Hit it Rich!, Black Diamond Casino, Wizard of Oz Slots, Willy Wonka Slots, and Princess
`
`Bride Slots—between 2015 and December 2017, id. ¶ 191, Zynga’s records indicate that Irelan
`
`last played Wizard of Oz Slots on March 15, 2021. Ferris Decl. ¶ 27. Plaintiffs admit they knew
`
`all along no money or goods could be exchanged for their credits in any of Zynga’s games. FAC
`
`¶¶ 29, 37, 39-40, 130-133; see also Ex. 1 § 5 (“You are not allowed to transfer Virtual Items
`
`outside of the Services (e.g., in the ‘real world’)”). Plaintiffs nonetheless contend these six games
`
`are a form of illegal gambling. They also challenge two discontinued games, Spin it Rich Free
`
`Casino Slots and Slots – Riches of Olympus, id. ¶¶ 14-15, 213-244, even though no plaintiff
`
`alleges to have played either game, id. ¶¶ 146-200. Plaintiffs call these eight games collectively
`
`the “Zynga Social Slots Games.” Id. ¶¶ 14-16.
`
`Plaintiffs purport to bring a class action under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq., on
`
`behalf of “[a]ll individuals who (1) purchased virtual ‘coins’ and (2) used those ‘coins’ to operate
`
`a slot machine in a Zynga Social Slots Game (3) in the United States.” Id. ¶ 201. Plaintiffs seek
`
`restitution, disgorgement and other just equitable relief, “damages” (even though not available
`
`under the UCL), pre- and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Id.
`
`at 79. Despite the fact that jury trials are not available under the UCL and plaintiffs expressly
`
`waived their “right to a trial before a judge and jury,” Courant Decl., Ex. 1 § 15 (emphasis in
`
`original) (“Ex. 1”), plaintiffs “demand a jury trial.” FAC at 79; see Acad. of Mot. Picture Arts &
`
`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 No. 3:21-cv-01427-LB
`-2-
`MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, STAY PROCEEDINGS, AND STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01427-LB Document 23 Filed 05/04/21 Page 12 of 29
`
`
`
`Sci. v. GoDaddy, Inc., No. CV 10-3738-AB (CWx), 2015 WL 12697732, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 10,
`
`2015) (“there is no right to a jury trial for UCL claims”).
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs Agreed to Arbitrate and to Assert Claims Individually
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs Expressly Agreed to Zynga’s Terms of Service
`
`Plaintiffs concede “Zynga’s Terms of Service . . . govern the use of the Zynga Social Slots
`
`Games.” FAC ¶ 141.1 Once a plaintiff installed any Zynga game, a prominent screen required
`
`plaintiff’s active assent before he or she could proceed. Ferris Decl. ¶¶ 5-6. This screen was
`
`materially similar in each of the Zynga Social Slots Games. Id. ¶ 8. In this “clickwrap
`
`agreement,” Zynga informed plaintiffs:
`
`Please take some time to read and understand these important legal documents.
`
`By clicking the “Accept” button below, you agree to the Terms of Service
`[hyperlinked] and acknowledge the Privacy Policy [hyperlinked] applies.
`
`Id. ¶¶ 6-7. The hyperlink would have taken plaintiffs to Zynga’s Terms of Service, which are
`
`posted in full on its website. Id. ¶¶ 5-7, 9. A similar in-game notification screen appeared any
`
`time Zynga revised and updated its Terms of Service; after providing plaintiffs with a hyperlinked
`
`opportunity to review the new Terms of Service, this screen likewise required plaintiffs’ assent for
`
`continued gameplay. Id. ¶¶ 10-11. Under Zynga’s standard practices, each plaintiff was presented
`
`with these clickwrap screens and clicked the “Accept” bubble in connection with each Zynga
`
`Social Slots Game they allege to have played. Id. ¶¶ 14-15, 17-19, 21-22, 24-25, 27-28. Zynga’s
`
`currently operative Terms of Service, effective October 7, 2020, apply to each plaintiff. Id.
`
`
`1 Plaintiffs refer to and quote Zynga’s Terms of Service in their Complaint. See FAC ¶¶ 141-
`142. The document is therefore incorporated by reference and may be considered by the Court.
`Stockman-Sann v. McKnight, No. SACV 12-1882 AG (JPRx), 2013 WL 8284817, at *3 (C.D. Cal.
`Mar. 25, 2013) (“Because Plaintiff’s CAC references these documents and quotes from them, they
`are appropriate for consideration under the doctrine of incorporation by reference.”). A true and
`correct copy of the currently operative Terms of Service, to which each plaintiff agreed, is
`attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Andrea Courant. See Courant Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. 1. It is
`also settled that “[w]hile the Court may not review the merits of the underlying case in deciding a
`motion to compel arbitration, it may consider the pleadings, documents of uncontested validity,
`and affidavits submitted by either party.” Macias v. Excel Bldg. Servs., LLC, 767 F. Supp. 2d
`1002, 1007 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (internal quotations, citations, and brackets omitted).
`
`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 No. 3:21-cv-01427-LB
`-3-
`MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, STAY PROCEEDINGS, AND STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01427-LB Document 23 Filed 05/04/21 Page 13 of 29
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Zynga’s Terms of Service Include an Arbitration Agreement and Class
`Action Waiver
`
`
`Among the provisions plaintiffs accepted by proceeding with gameplay is an “Agreement
`
`to Arbitrate and Class Action Waiver.” Ex. 1 § 15. The Terms of Service clearly announce that
`
`this provision applies to all “PLAYERS IN THE US AND CANADA.” Id. The terms also state
`
`in bold that “You and Zynga Both Agree to Arbitrate” disputes if the player “voluntarily
`
`accept[s] these Terms (and in many of our Services by voluntarily clicking or tapping an in-game
`
`button to affirmatively indicate your agreement to these Terms).” Id.
`
`Zynga’s Terms of Service further inform players in bolded and italicized language: “An
`
`arbitration proceeding is before a neutral arbitrator instead of a judge and jury, so by voluntarily
`
`accepting these Terms, you, Zynga, and any member of the Zynga Corporate Family all agree to
`
`give up the right to a trial before a judge and jury.” Id. (emphasis in original). The provision
`
`emphasizes that “[t]his agreement to arbitrate also applies even after you stop using your Zynga
`
`account or delete it.” Id.2
`
`Zynga’s Terms of Service have the following additional key features:
`
`Prominent Headings and Clear Terms. The Terms of Service, at the top of the
`
`introductory section, begin with an “IMPORTANT NOTICE” that provides in capitalized,
`
`bolded font: “FOR U.S. AND CANADIAN PLAYERS, AS DESCRIBED BELOW,
`
`DISPUTES BETWEEN YOU AND ZYNGA MUST BE RESOLVED BY BINDING
`
`ARBITRATION AND ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS UNLESS AN EXCEPTION
`
`APPLIES.” Ex. 1 at 1. Players are then informed “For more details, go to Section 15
`
`(Agreement to Arbitrate and Class Action Waiver).” Id. Section 15 begins with a prominent
`
`heading in capitalized, bolded font identifying the separate agreement to arbitrate:
`
`AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER
`…
`[Y]ou, Zynga, and any member of the Zynga Corporate Family all agree to the
`fullest extent permitted by law to resolve any claims arising out of, relating to, or
`
`2 Plaintiffs were given “60-days’ notice by email or through the Services if [Zynga]
`change[d] . . . Section 15 on [its] Agreement to Arbitrate and Class Action Waiver.” Ex. 1 § 15.
`
`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 No. 3:21-cv-01427-LB
`-4-
`MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, STAY PROCEEDINGS, AND STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01427-LB Document 23 Filed 05/04/21 Page 14 of 29
`
`
`
`in connection with the Terms, Feature Terms, Community Rules, your
`relationship with us, or Zynga’s Services, including but not limited to your use of
`the Services and information you provide via the Services