throbber
Case 3:22-cv-02716-MMC Document 36 Filed 11/18/22 Page 1 of 24
`
`
`
`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-

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