throbber
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
`
`

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

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

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

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

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

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

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

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

Become a Member

One Moment Please

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

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

Your document is on its way!

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

Sealed Document

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

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


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket