Case 4:21-cv-07006-JST Document 35 Filed 09/01/22 Page 1 of 12
`
`
`
`Katherine M. Dugdale, Bar No. 168014
`KDugdale@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`1888 Century Park East, Suite 1700
`Los Angeles, California 90067-1721
`Telephone: 310.788.9900
`Facsimile: 310.788.3399
`
`Jacob P. Dini, pro hac vice
`JDini@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, Washington 98101-3099
`Telephone: 206.359.8000
`Facsimile: 206.359.9000
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Twitch Interactive, Inc.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC., a Delaware
`corporation,,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`CHRIS VOSTERMANS, an individual, also
`known as CRUZZCONTROL; and
`CREATINEOVERDOSE, an individual,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
` Case No. 4:21-cv-7006-JST
`PLAINTIFF TWITCH INTERACTIVE
`INC.’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
`LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED
`COMPLAINT AND MEMORANDUM IN
`SUPPORT
`[L. CIV. R. 7-10]
`
`
`
`158146658.1
`
`
`
`
`
`4:21-CV-7006-JST
`EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
`LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`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 4:21-cv-07006-JST Document 35 Filed 09/01/22 Page 2 of 12
`
`
`
`TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Twitch Interactive, Inc., will and hereby does
`apply to the Court ex parte for an order granting Twitch leave to file Exhibit A as its Second
`Amended Complaint (“SAC”) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). The Second
`Amended Complaint differs from the original Complaint in that it reflects the voluntary dismissal
`of former defendant Chris Vostermans pursuant to a stipulated permanent injunction enjoining
`him (Dkt. Nos. 26 and 27), and names Twitch user “Mango” (also known as
`“mangoblacksunlegion” and “mangoblacksun”) as an additional defendant who participated in the
`hate raids at issue and describes his actions in connection with the hate raids.
`This application is based on: the memorandum of points and authorities, and exhibits
`thereto; the Declaration of Katherine M. Dugdale; all pleadings and evidence on file in this
`matter; and on such additional evidence or arguments as the Court may deem proper.
`
`
`
`Dated: September 1, 2022
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`158146658.1
`
`
`By:/s/ Katherine M. Dugdale
` Katherine M. Dugdale, Bar No. 168014
`KDugdale@perkinscoie.com
`Jacob P. Dini, pro hac vice
`JDini@perkinscoie.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Twitch Interactive, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`4:21-CV-7006-JST
`EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
`LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`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. 
`
`II. 
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`Case 4:21-cv-07006-JST Document 35 Filed 09/01/22 Page 3 of 12
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 5 
`A. 
`Plaintiff Twitch Interactive, Inc. ............................................................................ 5 
`B. 
`Defendant Mango ................................................................................................... 5 
`LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................ 6 
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 7 
`A. 
`The Proposed Second Amended Complaint is Filed in Good Faith ...................... 7 
`B. 
`Twitch’s Application Will Not Cause Undue Delay.............................................. 8 
`C. 
`The Proposed Second Amended Complaint Will Not Prejudice Defendants ........ 8 
`D. 
`Filing the Proposed Second Amended Complaint is Not Futile ............................ 9 
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 11 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`158146658.1
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`4:21-CV-7006-JST
`EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
`LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`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 4:21-cv-07006-JST Document 35 Filed 09/01/22 Page 4 of 12
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. 830 Eddy St., LLC,
`No. 20-CV-07097-JSC, 2021 WL 3271144 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2021) ......................................7
`
`Cooper Development Co. v. Employers Insurance of Wausau,
`765 F. Supp. 1429 (N.D. Cal. 1991) ...........................................................................................6
`
`DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton,
`833 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1987) ...........................................................................................6, 7, 8, 9
`
`Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.,
`316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) .....................................................................................................7
`
`Foman v. Davis,
`371 U.S. 178 (1962) ................................................................................................................6, 7
`
`Griggs v. Pave Am. Grp.,
`170 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 1999) .......................................................................................................6
`
`Howey v. U.S.,
`481 F.2d 1187 (9th Cir. 1973) .....................................................................................................8
`
`Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bur.,
`701 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir. 1983) .....................................................................................................9
`
`Korn v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc.,
`724 F.2d 1397 (9th Cir. 1984) .................................................................................................8, 9
`
`Miller v. Yokohama Tire Corp.,
`358 F.3d 616 (9th Cir. 2004) .......................................................................................................9
`
`Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc.,
`244 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2001) .......................................................................................................8
`
`Parino v. BidRack, Inc.,
`838 F. Supp. 2d 900 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ......................................................................................10
`
`Sonoma Cty. Ass’n of Retired Emps v. Sonoma County,
`708 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) .....................................................................................................7
`
`Sorosky v. Burroughs Corp.,
`826 F.2d 794 (9th Cir. 1987) .......................................................................................................8
`
`
`
`158146658.1
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`4:21-CV-7006-JST
`EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
`LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`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 4:21-cv-07006-JST Document 35 Filed 09/01/22 Page 5 of 12
`
`
`
`Tyco Thermal Controls LLC v. Redwood Indus.,
`2009 WL 4907512 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2009) ............................................................................8
`
`U.S. v. Webb,
`655 F.2d 977 (9th Cir. 1981) .......................................................................................................8
`
`Yelp Inc., v. Catron,
`70 F. Supp. 3d 1082 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ......................................................................................10
`
`STATUTES
`
`California Code of Civil Procedure § 337(a) ....................................................................................9
`
`California Code of Civil Procedure § 338(d) ....................................................................................9
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) ......................................................................................................................6, 7
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) .....................................................................................................................6
`
`
`
`158146658.1
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`4:21-CV-7006-JST
`EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
`LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`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 4:21-cv-07006-JST Document 35 Filed 09/01/22 Page 6 of 12
`
`
`
`A.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I.
`Plaintiff Twitch Interactive, Inc.
`Twitch is one of the world’s leading services for content creators to stream content as part
`of a social, interactive community. In 2020, Twitch users watched over 1 trillion minutes of
`content, and Twitch.tv had 30 million average daily visitors. SAC at ¶ 1. While watching
`streams, viewers can use Twitch’s chat function to interact in real time with the Twitch streamer
`and other viewers of the stream. Id. at ¶¶ 21–22. People who use the Twitch chat function must
`create an account and agree to Twitch’s Terms of Service and Community Guidelines
`(collectively, the “Terms”). Id. at ¶ 28. All visitors to the Twitch Services, regardless of whether
`they create an account or not, are bound by the Terms. Id.
`The safety of the Twitch community is Twitch’s top priority. To ensure that Twitch’s
`community remains safe and enjoyable for all users, Twitch strictly forbids harassment, threats,
`and hateful conduct. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 31. The Terms also ban “discrimination, denigration,
`harassment, or violence based on the following protected characteristics: race, ethnicity, color,
`caste, national origin, immigration status, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation,
`disability, serious medical condition, and veteran status.” Id. at ¶¶ 2, 35. Twitch users who are
`banned for violating the Terms are prohibited from accessing Twitch in the future. Id. at ¶ 30.
`
`B.
`
`Defendant Mango
`On information and belief, beginning in or about August 2021, Defendant Mango
`participated in the coordinated attacks on Twitch streamers and their viewers by flooding those
`communities with hateful language and content. Id. at ¶¶ 4, 14, 47–49, 53–56. Mango worked
`with others to perpetuate the attacks, and has done so by managing a server on a third-party chat
`platform dedicated to the purpose. Id. These attacks (colloquially known, and referred to
`hereafter, as “hate raids”) involved posting in streamers’ chats hate-filled and obscene text,
`including racial and homophobic slurs, personally identifying information, and malicious links
`(such as to gore-filled and violent videos) over a short period of time. Id. at ¶¶ 43–44. Multiple
`Twitch accounts linked to Mango have engaged in hate speech on Twitch and employ profile
`-5-
`
`
`
`158146658.1
`
`4:21-CV-7006-JST
`EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
`LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`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 4:21-cv-07006-JST Document 35 Filed 09/01/22 Page 7 of 12
`
`
`
`images containing swastikas and nudity, which would appear on hate raid victims’ channels when
`Mango used these accounts during hate raids. Id. at ¶ 47. Mango also purportedly made a false
`call to emergency services in an attempt to bring armed police officers to a streamer’s address
`without that streamer’s knowledge and created Twitch accounts with usernames that contained
`hate raid victims’ residential addresses, which were visible to any Twitch users or website
`visitors. SAC at ¶¶ 48–49. Twitch worked quickly to stop the hate raids, but Mango and
`CreatineOverdose evaded Twitch’s moderation efforts (and those of the affected streamers) by
`using fraudulently created “bot” accounts, created for the sole purpose of launching large scale,
`automated hate raids. Id. at ¶ 44.
`Since the attacks, Twitch has diligently investigated possible perpetrators of the hate raids.
`As a result of those investigations, and particularly responses to third-party subpoenas (e.g., Dkt.
`Nos. 17, 22), Twitch has now uncovered details relating to Mango’s involvement in the hate
`raids, as described in the Second Amended Complaint.
`
`II.
`LEGAL STANDARD
`Twitch requests leave to file the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule
`15(a), which provides that a party may amend a pleading after obtaining leave to do so, and that
`the Court “should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “[R]ule
`15’s policy of favoring amendments should be applied with ‘extreme liberality.’” DCD
`Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting U.S. v. Webb, 655 F.2d
`977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981)); see also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Cooper
`Development Co. v. Employers Insurance of Wausau, 765 F. Supp. 1429, 1432 (N.D. Cal. 1991).
`To that end, motions to amend should be resolved “with all inferences in favor of granting the
`motion.” Griggs v. Pave Am. Grp., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Leighton, 833 F.2d
`at 186).
`Courts consider four factors in determining the propriety of a motion to amend: whether
`the moving party seeks leave in bad faith, whether the amended pleading would cause undue
`delay, whether the opposing party would be prejudiced, and whether the amendments would be
`
`
`
`158146658.1
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`4:21-CV-7006-JST
`EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
`LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`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 4:21-cv-07006-JST Document 35 Filed 09/01/22 Page 8 of 12
`
`
`
`futile. Foman, 371 U.S. at 182 (1962); see also Sonoma Cty. Ass’n of Retired Emps v. Sonoma
`County, 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013). Prejudice to the opposing party is the most
`important factor and, absent prejudice or “a strong showing” of the other factors, “there exists a
`presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence Capital, LLC v.
`Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v.
`830 Eddy St., LLC, No. 20-CV-07097-JSC, 2021 WL 3271144, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2021)
`(“The most important factor is prejudice to the opposing party.”). This “extremely liberal”
`standard applies to amending parties as well as causes of action. DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at
`186; Leighton, 833 F.2d at 186.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`Twitch readily qualifies for leave to amend its Complaint because all four Foman factors
`weigh in its favor. The proposed Second Amended Complaint is filed in good faith, will not
`cause undue delay, will not prejudice existing or added parties, and is not futile.
`
`A.
`
`The Proposed Second Amended Complaint is Filed in Good Faith
`Twitch brings this application for leave to amend in good faith, as a result new
`information uncovered through diligent and ongoing investigations, and not for the purposes of
`delay or to avoid an adverse judgment. To date, Twitch’s investigation has involved analyzing
`information from multiple banned Twitch accounts associated with the hate raids, searching
`public sources for information on usernames associated with or similar to those used in the hate
`raids, and tracking IP addresses captured when CreatineOverdose and others used Twitch’s
`services. See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 18, 19, 29, 33; Declaration of Katherine M. Dugdale in Support of
`Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (“Dugdale Decl.”) ¶¶ 2–4.
`Twitch has served subpoenas on multiple third party platform believed to have been used to
`organize the hate raids or otherwise possessing information on individuals believed to be
`associated with the attacks. Dkt. Nos. 17, 33; Dugdale Decl. ¶ 5. These subpoenas uncovered
`information about CreatineOverdose and others potentially involved in the hate raids that was not
`previously available to Twitch, including information about Mango that now informs the Second
`
`
`
`158146658.1
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`4:21-CV-7006-JST
`EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
`LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`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 4:21-cv-07006-JST Document 35 Filed 09/01/22 Page 9 of 12
`
`
`
`Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 33; Dugdale Decl. ¶¶ 5–7; cf. Sorosky v. Burroughs Corp., 826
`F.2d 794, 805 (9th Cir. 1987) (upholding a bad faith finding when plaintiff moved to amend in
`order to add a defendant to destroy diversity jurisdiction). Twitch has pursued this case and its
`investigation in good faith, and its Second Amended Complaint is similarly a result of that work.
`Dugdale Decl. ¶ 7.
`
`B.
`
`Twitch’s Application Will Not Cause Undue Delay
`This application is timely filed and will not cause undue delay. Indeed, “delay alone no
`matter how lengthy is an insufficient ground for denial of leave to amend.” United States v.
`Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244
`F.3d 708, 712–13 (9th Cir. 2001); Howey v. U.S., 481 F.2d 1187, 1190-91 (9th Cir. 1973). In
`contrast with the multi-year delays in Howey and other cases, here Twitch is filing this
`application before the parties have even commenced discovery. Nor does the Second Amended
`Complaint change the nature of the lawsuit. Twitch simply seeks leave to name Mango as a
`defendant because its ongoing investigation has only recently uncovered Mango’s involvement in
`the hate raids. This reasonably prompt filing negates any suggestion of undue delay and
`facilitates efficient discovery and proceedings in this case. See Leighton, 833 F.2d at 187 (“[T]his
`suit is still in its early stages, and appellants have offered a satisfactory explanation for their
`delay”).
`
`C.
`
`The Proposed Second Amended Complaint Will Not Prejudice Defendants
`The proposed Second Amended Complaint will not prejudice Defendants because
`Defendants are still able to “pursue and preserve the facts relevant to various avenues of defense”
`of the suit. Korn v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., 724 F.2d 1397, 1400 (9th Cir. 1984); see
`also Tyco Thermal Controls LLC v. Redwood Indus., 2009 WL 4907512, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec.
`14, 2009) (“Neither delay resulting from the proposed amendment nor the prospect of additional
`discovery needed by the non-moving party in itself constitutes a sufficient showing of
`prejudice.”); DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at 187 (“The party opposing amendment bears the burden
`of showing prejudice.”). Avoiding any such prejudice is important in deciding motions for leave
`
`
`
`158146658.1
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`4:21-CV-7006-JST
`EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
`LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`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 4:21-cv-07006-JST Document 35 Filed 09/01/22 Page 10 of 12
`
`
`
`to amend a pleading, but timely notice, whether formal or informal, is sufficient to allay such
`concerns. Korn, 724 F.2d at 1400.
`Even if Mango has not already learned of this lawsuit through their relationship with the
`other defendant or via other means, the proposed Second Amended Complaint would be filed
`well within the statute of limitations for each of the causes of action alleged therein. See SAC at
`¶¶ 60–85 (bringing causes of action for breach of contract and fraud in the inducement under
`California law for conduct beginning in August 2021); California Code of Civil Procedure
`§ 337(a) (setting a four-year statute of limitations for breaches of written contracts); California
`Code of Civil Procedure § 338(d) (setting a three-year statute of limitations for fraud). Mango is
`thus not prejudiced by the Second Amended Complaint because Twitch’s claims are timely and
`because Mango is not otherwise disadvantaged by being named after other defendants.
`Defendant CreatineOverdose is not prejudiced for similar reasons, and because the Second
`Amended Complaint leaves allegations specific to them essentially untouched. See Exhibit B
`(illustrating redlined changes between the operative complaint and the SAC). Moreover,
`CreatineOverdose has thus far evaded identification and service, despite Twitch’s diligent and
`ongoing efforts to the contrary, and thus has not yet filed an answer or otherwise responded to the
`pleadings in a way that would be affected by the Second Amended Complaint.
`
`D.
`
`Filing the Proposed Second Amended Complaint is Not Futile
`To show that a proposed amended complaint would be futile, the opposing party must
`show that, while treating the pleaded facts as true, its allegations fail to state a claim as a matter of
`law. See Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bur., 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir.
`1983) (upholding denial of leave to amend when amendment to complaint “could not affect the
`outcome of th[e] lawsuit”); see also Miller v. Yokohama Tire Corp., 358 F.3d 616, 622-23 (9th
`Cir. 2004). Otherwise, a plaintiff “‘ought to be afforded an opportunity to test [its] claim on the
`merits.’” Leighton, 833 F.2d at 188 (quoting Foman, 371 U.S. at 182).
`The proposed claims against Mango1 in the Second Amended Complaint state legally
`
`
`1 The operative allegations supporting Twitch’s breach of contract and fraud in the
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`158146658.1
`
`4:21-CV-7006-JST
`EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
`LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`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 4:21-cv-07006-JST Document 35 Filed 09/01/22 Page 11 of 12
`
`
`
`sufficient claims for breach of contract and fraud in the inducement under California common law
`and are therefore not futile. See Dkt. No. 17. “A claim for breach of contract is comprised of a
`contract, plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, defendant’s breach, and the
`resulting damages to plaintiff.” Yelp Inc., v. Catron, 70 F. Supp. 3d 1082, 1099 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
`Twitch alleges that Mango, like CreatineOverdose, agreed to the Terms, and that the Terms
`constituted valid, enforceable contracts. SAC at ¶¶ 28, 60–68. Twitch performed on those
`contracts by granting Mango access to Twitch’s services, but Mango breached those contracts by,
`among other things, engaging in hateful and harassing conduct while using Twitch’s services,
`including by engaging in hate raids, and sharing the private personal information of hate raid
`victims, despite express prohibitions on such conduct. SAC at ¶¶ 47–49, 69–73. Finally, Twitch
`has suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of those breaches, both to investigate the
`conduct and to develop safeguards against ongoing harassment. SAC at ¶¶ 56–59. The Second
`Amended Complaint therefore states a claim for breach of contract under California common law.
`In order to state a claim for fraud in the inducement, the plaintiff must allege: “(a) a
`misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) scienter or knowledge
`of its falsity; (c) intent to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.”
`Parino v. BidRack, Inc., 838 F. Supp. 2d 900, 906 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (citing Lazar v. Super. Ct.,
`909 P.2d 981, 984 (Cal. 1996)). As with CreatineOverdose, Twitch adequately alleges each of
`these elements in the Second Amended Complaint. Twitch alleges that Mango agreed to be
`bound by the Terms despite having no intention to abide by the Terms, and despite knowingly
`making false representations to Twitch regarding the Terms. SAC ¶¶ 28–30, 45–47, 75–79, 81–
`82. Mango intended to induce Twitch’s reliance on these intentional misrepresentations, and
`Twitch justifiably allowed Mango register accounts and use Twitch’s services. SAC ¶¶ 28–30,
`78–83. As a result of Mango’s misrepresentations and fraudulent intent, Twitch has suffered
`damages. SAC ¶¶ 56–59. Having thus stated claims for fraud in the inducement (and breach of
`contract) under California common law and as a matter of law, the filing of the Second Amended
`
`
`inducement claims against CreatineOverdose are unchanged.
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`158146658.1
`
`4:21-CV-7006-JST
`EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
`LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`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 4:21-cv-07006-JST Document 35 Filed 09/01/22 Page 12 of 12
`
`
`
`Complaint would not be futile.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Twitch respectfully requests that the Court grant it leave to file
`the proposed Second Amended Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`Dated: September 1, 2022
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`158146658.1
`
`
`By:/s/ Katherine M. Dugdale
` Katherine M. Dugdale, Bar No. 168014
`KDugdale@perkinscoie.com
`Jacob P. Dini, pro hac vice
`JDini@perkinscoie.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Twitch Interactive, Inc.
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`4:21-CV-7006-JST
`EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
`LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`