Case 3:22-cv-02716-MMC Document 30 Filed 09/29/22 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`
`V.R.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ROBLOX CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 22-cv-02716-MMC
`
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
`MOTION TO DISMISS; DISMISSING
`COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
`AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the Court is defendant Roblox Corporation's ("Roblox") Motion to Dismiss,
`
`filed June 30, 2022. Plaintiff V.R. has filed opposition, to which Roblox has replied.
`
`Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion,
`
`the Court rules as follows.1
`
`In his Complaint, V.R., a minor, alleges that he, "under his own name and using
`
`his own money, made multiple in-game purchases in Roblox" (see Compl. ¶ 9), "an
`
`online game platform" (see Compl. ¶ 11). V.R. also alleges that, although he now
`
`"regrets these purchases and wishes to obtain a full refund" (see Compl. ¶ 30), Roblox
`
`"fails to provide an unrestricted right to seek refunds of any in-game purchases made by
`
`minors" (see Compl. ¶ 17). Based on said allegations, V.R. asserts four Counts, titled,
`
`respectively, "Declaratory Judgment on Minor's Right to Disaffirm," "Declaratory
`
`Judgment on Minor's Inability to Contract for Personal Property Not in Their Immediate
`
`Possession or Control," "Violation of the California Business & Professional Code
`
`§ 17200," and "Restitution or Unjust Enrichment." As relief, V.R. seeks restitution "in the
`
`amount already paid to [Roblox]" (see Compl. ¶ 1), and an injunction requiring Roblox "to
`
`
`1 By order filed September 27, 2022, the Court took the matter under submission.
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02716-MMC Document 30 Filed 09/29/22 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`allow for refunds on all in-game purchases without restrictions" (see Compl. ¶ 50; see
`
`also Compl. ¶ 83 (alleging entitlement to injunction to enjoin Roblox "from continuing to
`
`engage in the conduct described [in complaint]")).
`
`
`
`By the instant motion, Roblox seeks dismissal of V.R.'s claims on the ground that
`
`they are not ripe for adjudication and, consequently, that the Court lacks subject matter
`
`jurisdiction to consider them.
`
`
`
`Under Article III of the Constitution, a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
`
`to consider a case that is not ripe, i.e., one that is "dependent on contingent future events
`
`that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all." See Trump v. New
`
`York, 141 S. Ct. 530, 535 (2020) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Stated
`
`otherwise, a claim is not ripe where it "presents no live case or controversy." See Clinton
`
`v. Acequia, Inc., 94 F.3d 568, 572 (9th Cir. 1996).
`
`13
`
`
`
`Here, V.R. alleges that his contract with V.R. is either voidable, see Cal. Fam.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`Code § 6710 (providing "contract of a minor may be disaffirmed by the minor before
`
`majority or within a reasonable time afterwards"), or void, see Cal. Fam. Code § 6701(c)
`
`(providing minor "cannot" enter into "contract relating to any personal property not in the
`
`immediate possession or control of the minor"), and, in either case, that he is entitled to a
`
`refund of the amounts he paid Roblox. (See Compl. ¶¶ 49, 63, 84, 89.)
`
`19
`
`
`
`As Roblox points out, however, V.R. does not allege he sought a refund prior to
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`filing the instant action, much less that Roblox denied such request. See Doe v. Epic
`
`Games, Inc., 435 F. Supp. 3d 1024, 1044-45 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (holding minor's claim for
`
`refund presented "actual controversy," where defendant, prior to date complaint was filed,
`
`had received request for refund from plaintiff and thereafter "indicated its unwillingness to
`
`honor plaintiff's disaffirmance and refund the [minor's] purchases"). Although V.R.
`
`alleges that, by filing the instant action, he has "requested a refund" (see Compl. ¶ 49),
`
`he cites no authority holding a case or controversy can be created, in the first instance,
`
`by the filing of a complaint, and, in any event, V.R. does not allege that any request for a
`
`refund contained in his complaint has been denied.
`
`2
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02716-MMC Document 30 Filed 09/29/22 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`Although V.R. also alleges Roblox has a policy not to provide refunds to minors
`
`(see, e.g., Compl. ¶ 19 (alleging Roblox "operates a non-refund policy that . . . does not
`
`acknowledge a minor's right to obtain a refund")), and, citing Reeves v. Niantic, Inc., 2022
`
`WL 1769119 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2022), argues a case or controversy thus exists, see id.
`
`*1 (finding, where defendant had "non-refundability policy," a "case or controversy"
`
`existed between minor plaintiff and defendant as to minor's right to refund), his reliance
`
`thereon is unavailing.
`
`
`
`In particular, Roblox has offered undisputed evidence to counter V.R.'s allegation
`
`that Roblox has any such policy. See Edison v. United States, 822 F.3d 510, 517 (9th
`
`Cir. 2016) (holding defendant may raise "factual" challenge to subject matter jurisdiction
`
`by submitting evidence to counter allegations in complaint). In that regard, Roblox offers
`
`a declaration from its Senior Director of Product, who submits a copy of the Roblox
`
`Terms of Use (see Brown Decl. Ex. 1 ¶ 3.d) (providing that "[a]ll payments for Robux are
`
`final and not refundable, except as required by law"), and avers that, consistent with the
`
`law pertaining to minors, Roblox has "a policy pursuant to which Roblox has not and
`
`would not reject a user's request for a refund for any purchases made by the user as a
`
`minor" (see id. ¶ 7), and further, had V.R. told Roblox prior to filing suit that he wanted to
`
`disaffirm his contracts and obtain a refund as a minor, he would have received a refund
`
`for any purchases made by him as a minor (see id. ¶ 8). V.R., in his opposition, fails to
`
`offer any evidence, let alone evidence to counter Roblox's showing. See Edison, 822
`
`F.3d at 517 (holding plaintiff, in response to factual challenge, must offer evidence to
`
`satisfy "burden of establishing that the court, in fact, possesses subject matter
`
`jurisdiction").2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`24
`
`//
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`2 Although V.R. argues Roblox's evidentiary showing is insufficient because,
`according to V.R., Roblox "provides no actual means" for V.R. to request a refund (see
`Pl.'s Opp. at 8:3-7), Roblox's Terms of Use contain a paragraph dedicated to "Contact
`Information," which provides a mailing address in San Mateo, California, as well as a web
`address, and a toll-free telephone number. (See Brown Decl. Ex. 1 ¶ 19.g.)
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02716-MMC Document 30 Filed 09/29/22 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`In sum, there being no showing that Roblox has either denied or would deny a
`
`request by V.R. for a refund, V.R.'s claims, all of which seek an order requiring Roblox to
`
`provide a refund, are not ripe for adjudication. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499
`
`n.10 (1975) (noting claim not ripe unless "harm asserted has matured sufficiently to
`
`warrant judicial intervention").
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Roblox's motion to dismiss will be granted.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons stated, Roblox's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and the
`
`Complaint is hereby DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`
`
`Although it is unclear how V.R. can cure the deficiencies identified above, the
`
`11
`
`12
`
`Court will, as V.R. requests, afford V.R. an opportunity to amend, and, in particular, to
`
`file, no later than October 21, 2022, a First Amended Complaint.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Lastly, in light of the above, the Case Management Conference is hereby
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`CONTINUED from November 4, 2022, to January 13, 2023, at 10:30 a.m. A Joint Case
`
`Management Statement shall be filed no later than January 6, 2023.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Dated: September 29, 2022
`
`
`
`
`MAXINE M. CHESNEY
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`4
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`