`
`
`
`ANTHONY J WEIBELL, State Bar No. 238850
`THOMAS R. WAKEFIELD, State Bar No. 330121
`CARMEN SOBCZAK, State Bar No. 342569
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
`Telephone: (650) 493-9300
`Facsimile: (650) 565-5100
`Email: aweibell@wsgr.com
`
`twakefield@wsgr.com
`
`csobczak@wsgr.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`ROBLOX CORPORATION
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`V.R., et al.,
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`ROBLOX CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-02716-MMC
`
`DEFENDANT ROBLOX
`CORPORATION’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST
`AMENDED CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT
`
`Date: January 27, 2023
`Time: 9:00 A.M.
`Judge: Hon. Maxine M. Chesney
`Courtroom: 7, 19th Floor
`
`
`ROBLOX’S MOT. TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02716-MMC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:22-cv-02716-MMC Document 36 Filed 11/18/22 Page 2 of 24
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION ........................................................................................ 1
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES .................................................................................................... 1
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ................................................................ 2
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 2
`
`BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY ........................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Roblox Grants Refunds to Minors Who Opt to Disaffirm Their Contracts ............ 3
`
`The Court Dismissed Plaintiff’s Initial Complaint as Unripe ................................. 3
`
`The FAC Fails to Cure the Deficiency Identified by the Court .............................. 4
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 4
`
`I.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S LAWSUIT IS STILL NOT RIPE ................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Legal Standard ............................................................................................. 5
`
`Plaintiff’s Self-Manufactured Lawsuit Is Still Not Ripe ............................. 5
`
`Plaintiff Lacks Standing for Injunctive Relief ............................................ 8
`
`II.
`
`THE ACTION SHOULD BE DISMISSED UNDER RULE 12(B)(6) .................. 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Legal Standard ............................................................................................. 9
`
`Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim for Declaratory Relief on Voidability ...... 10
`
`Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim for Declaratory Relief on Nullity ............. 10
`
`Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim Under the UCL ........................................ 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff Lacks Standing Under the UCL ...................................... 12
`
`Plaintiff Has No “Unlawful” UCL Claim ..................................... 14
`
`Roblox Did Not Engage in “Unfair” Conduct .............................. 14
`
`Plaintiff Has No Available Remedies Under the UCL ................. 16
`
`E.
`
`Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim for Unjust Enrichment ............................. 16
`
`III.
`
`DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE IS PROPER .................................................... 17
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROBLOX’S MOT. TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02716-MMC
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`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 3:22-cv-02716-MMC Document 36 Filed 11/18/22 Page 3 of 24
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Abbott Labs. v. Gardner,
`387 U.S. 136 (1967) ...........................................................................................................5, 6
`
`Abuelhawa v. Santa Clara Univ.,
`529 F. Supp. 3d 1059 (N.D. Cal. 2021) ...............................................................................16
`
`Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc.,
`568 U.S. 85 (2013) .................................................................................................................5
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...............................................................................................................9
`
`B.C. v. Plumas Unified Sch. Dist.,
`192 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir. 1999) ................................................................................................8
`
`Backus v. Biscomerica Corp.,
`378 F. Supp. 3d 849 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ...................................................................................9
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...............................................................................................................9
`
`Bova v. City of Medford,
`564 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................6
`
`Brodsky v. Apple Inc.,
`445 F. Supp. 3d 110 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ...........................................................................16, 17
`
`Bruton v. Gerber Prods. Co.,
`703 F. App’x 468 (9th Cir. 2017) .........................................................................................16
`
`C.M.D. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 12-1216-RS, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41371
`(N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2014), aff’d, 621 F. App’x 488 (9th Cir. 2015) .......................10, 11, 12
`
`Castagnola v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`No. 11-05772-JSW, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82026
`(N.D. Cal. June 13, 2012) .....................................................................................................15
`
`Chandler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`598 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................5
`
`Chowning v. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, Inc.,
`735 F. App’x 924 (9th Cir. 2018) .........................................................................................16
`
`ROBLOX’S MOT. TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02716-MMC
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`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 3:22-cv-02716-MMC Document 36 Filed 11/18/22 Page 4 of 24
`
`
`
`Clark v. City of Seattle,
`899 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 2018) ..................................................................................................8
`
`Clinton v. Acequia, Inc.,
`94 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 1996) ................................................................................................5, 6
`
`Davis v. RiverSource Life Ins. Co.,
`240 F. Supp. 3d 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .........................................................................13, 15
`
`Desaigoudar v. Meyercord,
`223 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2000) ..............................................................................................17
`
`Edison v. United States,
`822 F.3d 510 (9th Cir. 2016) ..................................................................................................5
`
`Eliahu v. State of Israel,
`No. 14-01636-BLF, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26073
`(N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2015), aff’d, 659 F. App’x 451 (9th Cir. 2016) .......................................7
`
`Figy v. Amy’s Kitchen, Inc.,
`No. 13-03816-SI, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167723
`(N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2013) ....................................................................................................13
`
`In re Firearm Cases,
`126 Cal. App. 4th 959 (2005) ...............................................................................................15
`
`Genfit S.A. v. Cymabay Therapeutics Inc.,
`No. 21-00395-MMC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11460
`(N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2022) ......................................................................................................14
`
`In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig.,
`536 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................9
`
`Gill v. Whitford,
`138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018) .........................................................................................................16
`
`Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc.,
`No. 20-06754-WHA, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11487
`(N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2022) ......................................................................................................12
`
`Gratz v. Bollinger,
`539 U.S. 244 (2003) ...............................................................................................................5
`
`Henley v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am.,
`No. 21-04243-RS, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154017
`(N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2021) ....................................................................................................10
`
`Hodsdon v. Mars, Inc.,
`891 F.3d 857 (9th Cir. 2018) ................................................................................................14
`
`ROBLOX’S MOT. TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02716-MMC
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`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 3:22-cv-02716-MMC Document 36 Filed 11/18/22 Page 5 of 24
`
`
`
`Imber-Gluck v. Google, Inc.,
`No. 14-01070-RMW, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98899
`(N.D. Cal. July 21, 2014) ...............................................................................................14, 15
`
`Impress Commc’ns v. Unumprovident Corp.,
`335 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (C.D. Cal. 2003) ..................................................................................6
`
`Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2018) ..................................................................................................9
`
`Knievel v. ESPN,
`393 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................9
`
`Kremen v. Cohen,
`337 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2003) ..............................................................................................12
`
`Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court,
`51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011) ....................................................................................................12, 13
`
`Letizia v. Facebook Inc.,
`267 F. Supp. 3d 1235 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ...............................................................................13
`
`Lewis v. Casey,
`518 U.S. 343 (1996) .............................................................................................................13
`
`Live Nation Merch., Inc. v. Does,
`No. 18-2703, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205294
`(S.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2018) .........................................................................................................6
`
`Melchior v. New Line Prods., Inc.,
`106 Cal. App. 4th 779 (2003) ...............................................................................................17
`
`Moose Run, LLC v. Libric,
`No. 19-01879-MMC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107077
`(N.D. Cal. June 18, 2020) ...............................................................................................16, 17
`
`Olsen v. Breeze, Inc.,
`48 Cal. App. 4th 608 (1996) .................................................................................................15
`
`Robbins v. PlushCare, Inc.,
`No. 21-03444-MMC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134401
`(N.D. Cal. July 28, 2022) .....................................................................................................16
`
`Sisco v. Cosgrove,
`51 Cal. App. 4th 1302 (1996) ...............................................................................................11
`
`Smith v. Ford Motor Co.,
`749 F. Supp. 2d 980 (N.D. Cal. 2010),
`aff’d, 462 F. App’x 660 (9th Cir. 2011) ...............................................................................16
`
`ROBLOX’S MOT. TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02716-MMC
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`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 3:22-cv-02716-MMC Document 36 Filed 11/18/22 Page 6 of 24
`
`
`
`South Bay Chevrolet v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp.,
`72 Cal. App. 4th 861 (1999) ...........................................................................................14, 15
`
`Swartz v. KPMG LLP,
`476 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2007) ..................................................................................................9
`
`T.K. v. Adobe Sys. Inc.,
`No. 17-04595-LHK, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65557
`(N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2018) .......................................................................................8, 9, 16, 17
`
`Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n,
`220 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................................6, 8
`
`Trump v. New York,
`141 S. Ct. 530 (2020) .....................................................................................................2, 5, 6
`
`Twitter, Inc. v. Paxton,
`26 F.4th 1119 (9th Cir. 2022) .............................................................................................5, 6
`
`United States v. Schlenker,
`24 F.4th 1301 (9th Cir. 2022) ...............................................................................................10
`
`Waiserman v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA,
`No. 14-00667, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183642
`(C.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2014) .......................................................................................................6
`
`Warth v. Seldin,
`422 U.S. 490 (1975) ...............................................................................................................7
`
`White v. Lee,
`227 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2000) ................................................................................................5
`
`Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp.,
`552 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................17
`
`STATUTES
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 ...............................................................................12, 13, 14, 15, 16
`
`Cal. Fam. Code § 6700 .........................................................................................................10, 11, 14
`
`Cal. Fam. Code § 6701(c) ..............................................................................................10, 11, 12, 14
`
`U.S. Const. Article III, § 2, cl. 1 ........................................................................................................5
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) ..................................................................................................................1, 5
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ..............................................................................................................1, 2, 9
`
`ROBLOX’S MOT. TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02716-MMC
`
`
`-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 3:22-cv-02716-MMC Document 36 Filed 11/18/22 Page 7 of 24
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 27, 2023 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as
`
`the matter may be heard, before the Honorable Maxine M. Chesney, in Courtroom 7, 19th Floor, of
`
`the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, located at 450 Golden Gate
`
`Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, Defendant Roblox Corporation (“Roblox”) will move, and
`
`hereby does move, this Court pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)
`
`for an order dismissing the claims asserted by the Plaintiff in this action in the First Amended Class
`
`Action Complaint (“FAC”) (ECF No. 33) with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and
`
`for failure to state a claim.
`
`Roblox’s Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion and Memorandum of Points
`
`and Authorities, the Declaration of Gerald Hastie in Support of Roblox’s Motion to Dismiss (“Hastie
`
`Decl.”) and attachment thereto, the Declaration of Thomas Wakefield in Support of Roblox’s
`
`Motion to Dismiss (“Wakefield Decl.”) and attachment thereto, as well as the records, pleadings,
`
`and papers on file in this action, and upon such other matters as may be presented before or at the
`
`time of the hearing on this Motion.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`1.
`
`Should the action be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject
`
`matter jurisdiction because there is no ripe case or controversy, as required by Article III of the U.S.
`
`Constitution?
`
`2.
`
`Should Plaintiff’s requests for injunctive relief be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`12(b)(1) because Plaintiff lacks standing in that he vows he will no longer access the Roblox
`
`Platform and could not be injured by any future acts of Roblox?
`
`3.
`
`Should Plaintiff’s claims against Roblox be dismissed with prejudice under Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because Plaintiff has not and could not state a claim?
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`ROBLOX’S MOT. TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02716-MMC
`
`
`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 3:22-cv-02716-MMC Document 36 Filed 11/18/22 Page 8 of 24
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Court should dismiss Plaintiff V.R.’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) with prejudice
`
`for the same reason it dismissed the original Complaint and also for the additional reasons given in
`
`Roblox’s original motion to dismiss that are set forth again below. In dismissing the prior complaint
`
`for unripeness, the Court held that V.R. failed to allege that “he sought a refund prior to filing the
`
`instant action, much less that Roblox denied such request.” ECF No. 30 (“MTD Order”) at 2. The
`
`Court graciously granted V.R.’s request for another chance to amend the complaint but warned that
`
`“it is unclear how V.R. can cure the deficiencies identified.” Id. Fulfilling the Court’s prediction,
`
`the FAC again fails to allege—nor could it allege—that V.R. ever sought a refund based on
`
`disaffirmance of his Roblox contract or that Roblox ever denied such a refund. Indeed, to the
`
`contrary, Roblox proactively reached out to V.R. following the filing of the complaint to initiate the
`
`requested refund, but V.R. has refused to respond. Wakefield Decl. Ex. 1.
`
`In a futile attempt to plead around this defect, V.R. again makes the implausible allegation
`
`that despite Roblox’s express policy allowing refunds when “required by law,” V.R. never asked
`
`for a refund because he assumed Roblox would still have denied him a refund even if required by
`
`law. He also now alleges that he made the purchases at issue “from Amazon.com” (FAC ¶ 10) and
`
`that “Amazon does not allow for returns of ‘Downloadable Software Products,’ which includes
`
`purchases that Plaintiff made” (FAC ¶ 36). This new allegation does not cure the defect. Allegations
`
`about Amazon’s contractual refund policy change nothing about Roblox’s policy that V.R. can
`
`disaffirm his contract with Roblox and receive a refund from Roblox for those purchases. Absent
`
`Roblox acting contrary to its express policy (which is not alleged because it never happened), this
`
`case is still “dependent on contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may
`
`not occur at all.” MTD Order at 2 (quoting Trump v. New York, 141 S. Ct. 530, 535 (2020)).
`
`The Court may end its analysis there, as it did in its prior Order, but V.R.’s claims also suffer
`
`from individual fatal defects that warrant dismissal of each claim under Rule 12(b)(6), as discussed
`
`in Roblox’s original motion to dismiss and below.
`
`For all these reasons, the Court may and should dismiss the FAC with prejudice.
`
`ROBLOX’S MOT. TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02716-MMC
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`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 3:22-cv-02716-MMC Document 36 Filed 11/18/22 Page 9 of 24
`
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`A.
`
`Roblox Grants Refunds to Minors Who Opt to Disaffirm Their Contracts
`
`Roblox operates the Roblox Platform, a virtual world built by players, for players. See FAC
`
`¶ 12. While users under the age of 18 can create accounts and access content on Roblox, the Roblox
`
`Terms of Use (“TOU”) require minors to have the permission of a parent or legal guardian to do so.
`
`See FAC ¶ 21; Hastie Decl. Ex. 1 (“TOU”) § 1(a).
`
`Roblox is free to download and play. FAC ¶¶ 4, 13. Users can also purchase a virtual
`
`currency called “Robux,” which are licenses issued by Roblox to engage in additional in-platform
`
`entertainment activities. FAC ¶ 14; TOU § 3(a)-(b). After purchasing Robux, the user can use those
`
`Robux on the Roblox Platform in any manner that Roblox allows, including trading Robux to access
`
`virtual experiences, games, and avatars. See FAC ¶¶ 5, 13, 31. While purchases of Robux are
`
`generally non-refundable, Roblox expressly allows refunds “as required by law.” FAC ¶ 23. Because
`
`purchases of Robux are governed by the Roblox TOU, minor users cannot disaffirm a purchase to
`
`get a refund without disaffirming the entire Roblox TOU. See Hastie Decl. ¶¶ 7-8. It is Roblox’s
`
`policy to provide such refunds when a minor user opts to disaffirm the Roblox TOU, thereby
`
`terminating their Roblox account and their right to access the Roblox Platform in the future (subject
`
`to an opportunity for later reinstatement upon request in some cases). Id.
`
`B.
`
`The Court Dismissed Plaintiff’s Initial Complaint as Unripe
`
`As the Court noted in its prior Order, V.R. is a minor who signed up for a Roblox account,
`
`made purchases of Robux, and now “regrets these purchases and wishes to obtain a full refund.”
`
`MTD Order at 1 (quoting Compl. ¶¶ 9, 11, 17, 30, ECF No. 1). V.R. claims to have the right to walk
`
`away from his contract with Roblox and to be “entitled to a refund” under the law because he is a
`
`minor. See id. at 2 (citing Compl. ¶¶ 49, 63, 84, 89).
`
`But V.R. never requested a refund before filing suit, despite Roblox’s policy of allowing
`
`refunds required by law. Id. The Court held that fact was dispositive. Id. at 3-4. The Court also noted
`
`the “undisputed evidence” that Roblox has both a policy and a practice of permitting minor users to
`
`receive refunds if they disaffirm their contracts. Id. As the Court put it, “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
`
`ROBLOX’S MOT. TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02716-MMC
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`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 3:22-cv-02716-MMC Document 36 Filed 11/18/22 Page 10 of 24
`
`
`
`seek an order requiring Roblox to provide a refund, are not ripe for adjudication.” Id. at 4. The Court
`
`permitted leave to amend, while expressing skepticism as to “how V.R. can cure the deficiencies
`
`identified [in its Order].” Id.
`
`C.
`
`The FAC Fails to Cure the Deficiency Identified by the Court
`
`The Court’s skepticism about allowing amendment of the Complaint was well founded. The
`
`most striking aspect of the FAC is what V.R. left unchanged: V.R. still does not allege that Roblox
`
`denied him the sought-after refund, nor could he. And what V.R. has added to his allegations is
`
`entirely irrelevant. V.R. now alleges that he purchased Robux “from Amazon.com” and that
`
`“Amazon does not allow for returns of ‘Downloadable Software Products,’ which includes
`
`purchases that Plaintiff made.” FAC ¶¶ 10, 36, 48. Those are the only new allegations about V.R.
`
`The FAC also tacks on allegations that have nothing to do with V.R. personally and have
`
`nothing to do with any minors seeking disaffirmance of their contract with Roblox. See FAC ¶¶ 39,
`
`41 (alleging some other users complained about getting refunds, but not in a disaffirmance context);
`
`FAC ¶¶ 31-36 (alleging that Roblox “accepts payment through iTunes, Xbox, Microsoft (Windows
`
`App or Xbox), and Amazon” and instructs payment card holders reporting unauthorized purchases
`
`to “reach out directly” to those providers); FAC ¶¶ 37-38 (Roblox webpage discussing “accidental
`
`purchases” and “lost and unused items,” but not in a disaffirmance context). These allegations have
`
`nothing to do with V.R., who does not claim to have read these webpages either before or after the
`
`purchases at issue. Instead, after retaining counsel, he read the language in the TOU that explicitly
`
`allows for refunds “as required by law.” See FAC ¶¶ 23, 47 (emphasis added). Nor do these
`
`allegations have anything to do with minors who disaffirmed their Roblox contracts and seek a
`
`refund after disaffirmance.
`
`Consequently, the new allegations do nothing to salvage V.R.’s unripe lawsuit.
`
`I.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S LAWSUIT IS STILL NOT RIPE
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Plaintiff V.R.’s lawsuit is still not ripe because Roblox’s stated policies agree with V.R. that
`
`he can get a refund when he disaffirms his contract with Roblox. Indeed, Roblox has reached out to
`
`V.R. to process his refund request. The only reason V.R. has not been refunded is his own inaction:
`
`ROBLOX’S MOT. TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02716-MMC
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02716-MMC Document 36 Filed 11/18/22 Page 11 of 24
`
`
`
`he failed to request a refund before filing this lawsuit and has refused to respond to Roblox after
`
`filing this lawsuit.
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`A civil action must be dismissed if there is no subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`12(b)(1); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. “A foundational principle of Article III is that ‘an actual
`
`controversy must exist not only at the time the complaint is filed, but through all stages of the
`
`litigation.’” Trump, 141 S. Ct. at 534 (quoting Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 90-91
`
`(2013)). In a putative class action, the named plaintiff must show he or she personally has standing;
`
`allegations of injury to the class are insufficient. Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 289 (2003).
`
`Moreover, courts considering factual attack on jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) “need not presume
`
`the truthfulness of the plaintiffs’ allegations,” White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000),
`
`and may “look beyond the pleadings to the parties’ evidence,” Edison v. United States, 822 F.3d
`
`510, 517 (9th Cir. 2016).
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiff’s Self-Manufactured Lawsuit Is Still Not Ripe
`
`V.R.’s initial complaint was not ripe because it failed to allege that “he sought a refund prior
`
`to filing the instant action, much less that Roblox denied such request.” MTD Order at 2. That
`
`glaring deficiency remains in the FAC, and this case still “hangs on future contingencies that may
`
`or may not occur.” Clinton v. Acequia, Inc., 94 F.3d 568, 572 (9th Cir. 1996). Moreover, as V.R.
`
`well knows, those contingencies will not occur because Roblox already reached out to V.R. to
`
`process the requested disaffirmance and refund and is only waiting for V.R. to respond. Wakefield
`
`Decl. Ex. 1.
`
`“The Article III case or controversy requirement limits federal courts’ subject matter
`
`jurisdiction by requiring, inter alia, that plaintiffs have standing and that claims be ‘ripe’ for
`
`adjudication.” Chandler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 598 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 2010).
`
`“Along with standing and mootness, ripeness is one of three justiciability requirements.” Twitter,
`
`Inc. v. Paxton, 26 F.4th 1119, 1122-23 (9th Cir. 2022). “The ‘basic rationale’ of the ripeness
`
`requirement is ‘to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling
`
`themselves in abstract disagreements.’” Id. at 1123 (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136,
`
`ROBLOX’S MOT. TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02716-MMC
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`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 3:22-cv-02716-MMC Document 36 Filed 11/18/22 Page 12 of 24
`
`
`
`148 (1967)). Ripeness has “both a constitutional and a prudential component.” Thomas v. Anchorage
`
`Equal Rights Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1138 (9th Cir. 2000). Asking “whether the issues presented
`
`are definite and concrete, not hypothetical or abstract,” the constitutional component “is
`
`synonymous with the injury-in-fact prong of the standing inquiry.” Twitter, 26 F.4th at 1123. The
`
`prudential component evaluates “both the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship
`
`to the parties of withholding court consideration.” Id.
`
`A case is not ripe if it is “riddled with contingencies and speculation that impede judicial
`
`review.” Trump, 141 S. Ct. at 535. It follows that a plaintiff does not present a ripe dispute where it
`
`sues over an alleged breach of a legal obligation whose performance is not yet due. See, e.g., Clinton,
`
`94 F.3d at 572 (breach-of-contract claim not ripe because time for contractual performance had not
`
`yet passed). In Bova v. City of Medford, for instance, the Ninth Circuit held that current employees
`
`could not sue over their retirement benefits: “Plaintiffs’ alleged injury—denial of health insurance
`
`coverage—has not yet occurred. It is contingent upon two events: (1) each Plaintiff’s retirement
`
`from City service; and (2) the City’s official denial of benefits to him or her. It is possible that
`
`neither of the two events will occur.” 564 F.3d 1093, 1096 (9th Cir. 2009). A line of district court
`
`cases is in accord. See, e.g., Live Nation Merch., Inc. v. Does, No. 18-2703, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`205294, at *10-11 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2018) (claims to stop bootlegging of merchandise at concert
`
`not ripe because the concert—and any possible bootlegging—had not yet occurred); Waiserman v.
`
`Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, No. 14-00667, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183642, at *6
`
`(C.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2014) (claims brought by insureds not ripe because they never sought benefits
`
`from insurer); Impress Commc’ns v. Unumprovident Corp., 335 F. Supp. 2d 1053, 1059 (C.D. Cal.
`
`2003) (same). As the Waiserman court put it, “How could [plaintiff] know whether defendants
`
`would pay out his claim if he never submitted one?” 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183642, at *6.
`
`This case is even less ripe than the likes of Bova and Waiserman. Here, two obvious
`
`contingencies prevent this dispute from ripening: (1) V.R. must provide Roblox with the information
`
`needed to identify his account and process his disaffirmance and refund; and (2) Roblox would need
`
`to deny his disaffirmance and refund request. V.R. has only himself to blame for the fact that neither
`
`ROBLOX’S MOT. TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02716-MMC
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`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 3:22-cv-02716-MMC Document 36 Filed 11/18/22 Page 13 of 24
`
`
`
`has happened. Given V.R.’s claim in his prior briefing that he lacked a “means” to a refund,1 Roblox
`
`asked his counsel for the information needed to grant the refund that he supposedly wants.
`
`Wakefield Decl. Ex. 1. Roblox received no response. See id. Without that information, Roblox has
`
`no way of refunding V.R.—and he cannot generate a ripe dispute by continuing to conceal the
`
`information needed to redress his supposed harm. See Eliahu v. State of Israel, No. 14-01636-BLF,
`
`2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26073, at *25 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2015) (“A plaintiff cannot sustain Article
`
`III standing based on injuries that are self-inflicted.” (citing Mendia v. Garcia, 768 F.3d 1009, 1013
`
`n.1 (9th Cir. 2014))), aff’d, 659 F. App’x 451 (9th Cir. 2016). Thus, if anything, it is Roblox who
`
`offered a refund, and V.R. who has implicitly rejected that offer.
`
`Rather than take up Roblox on its offer, V.R. amended his complaint to add allegations about
`
`third-party payment providers (Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft) through which consumers can
`
`purchase Robux.2 FAC ¶¶ 31-