throbber
Case 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 39 Filed 02/12/21 Page 1 of 33
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
` Case No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG
`
`DEFENDANT STUBHUB, INC.’S NOTICE
`OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
`ARBITRATION OR, IN THE
`ALTERNATIVE, STAY PROCEEDINGS,
`AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`[Filed concurrently with Declaration of Todd
`Northcutt and Exhibit thereto and [Proposed]
`Order]
`
`Judge: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
`Date: April 15, 2021
`Time: 2:00 p.m.
`Courtroom: 2
`
`
`
`
` No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG
`
`DEFENDANT STUBHUB, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`AND MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHS. IN SUPPORT
`
`William P. Donovan, Jr. (SBN 155881)
`Daniel R. Campbell (Pro Hac Vice)
`Emilie E. O'Toole (Pro Hac Vice)
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`2049 Century Park East
`Suite 3200
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
`Telephone:
`(310) 277-4110
`Facsimile:
`(310) 277-4730
`wdonovan@mwe.com
`dcampbell@mwe.com
`eotoole@mwe.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant StubHub, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`IN RE STUBHUB REFUND LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 39 Filed 02/12/21 Page 2 of 33
`
`
`
`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
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on April 15, 2021, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as
`the matter may be heard, before the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the United States District
`Court for the Northern District of California, in Courtroom 2, of the above-entitled Court, located at
`1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, Defendant StubHub, Inc. (“StubHub”) will and hereby does
`move the Court for an order compelling arbitration of all causes of action for relief asserted against
`Defendant by Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint filed on or about January 8, 2021
`(the “Complaint” or “CAC”) based on the valid and binding arbitration clause in the StubHub
`Marketplace Global User Agreement (“User Agreement” or “StubHub User Agreement”) that all
`Plaintiffs were on notice of and agreed to by using StubHub for the alleged ticket purchases at issue.
`The Motion to Compel Arbitration (the “Motion”) should be granted pursuant to the Federal
`Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., because—as Plaintiffs readily admit in their Complaint—
`transactions with StubHub are governed by the StubHub User Agreement. Indeed, the operative
`arbitration clause in the User Agreement has already—and recently—been upheld in the federal
`courts in the cases of Ajzenman v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, 2020 WL 6037140 (C.D.
`Cal. Sept. 14, 2020) and Barnes v. StubHub, Inc., 2019 WL 11505575 (S.D. Fla. October 3, 2019) in
`materially identical circumstances. Plaintiffs were clearly notified of the User Agreement and
`assented to its terms when they created their StubHub accounts, signed into their StubHub accounts,
`used StubHub’s site and services, and/or purchased tickets through StubHub as a user or a guest.
`Because the User Agreement contains a binding class action waiver and arbitration provision
`governing the instant dispute, the claims alleged in the Complaint should be sent to arbitration on an
`individual basis and this lawsuit either dismissed or stayed. Punctuating the appropriateness of
`compelling arbitration is the fact that all Plaintiffs expressly sue to enforce the StubHub User
`Agreement and are therefore estopped from challenging the arbitration provision as unconscionable.
`StubHub bases its Motion on this Notice, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and
`Authorities, all pleadings and papers filed in this action, the argument of counsel, and any other
`matters that may come before the Court.
`
`- 1 -
` No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG
`DEFENDANT STUBHUB, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`AND MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHS. IN SUPPORT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 39 Filed 02/12/21 Page 3 of 33
`
`
`
`Dated: February 12, 2021
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`William P. Donovan, Jr. (SBN 155881)
`Daniel R. Campbell (pro hac vice)
`Emilie E. O’Toole (pro hac vice)
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
`Tel: (310) 277-4111
`Fax: (310) 277-4730
`wdonovan@mwe.com
`dcampbell@mwe.com
`eotoole@mwe.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant StubHub, Inc.
`
`
`- 2 -
` No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG
`DEFENDANT STUBHUB, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`AND MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHS. IN SUPPORT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 39 Filed 02/12/21 Page 4 of 33
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1
`BACKGROUND .....................................................................................................................2
`A.
`The Parties. ..................................................................................................................2
`B.
`Allegations Against StubHub. .....................................................................................2
`C.
`The StubHub Ticket Marketplace. ...............................................................................3
`D.
`Plaintiffs Accepted The StubHub User Agreement During The StubHub
`Registration, Sign-In, and/or Purchasing Process. .......................................................4
`The StubHub User Agreement and Arbitration Provision. ..........................................7
`E.
`LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................10
`STUBHUB’S ARBITRATION PROVISION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER SHOULD
`BE ENFORCED AGAINST PLAINTIFFS ..........................................................................11
`A.
`Plaintiffs Agreed To The Valid And Enforceable StubHub User Agreement And
`Arbitration Provision. ................................................................................................12
`Plaintiffs’ Causes of Action And Disputes Are Encompassed By The Arbitration
`Provision In The User Agreement. ............................................................................15
`Plaintiffs Concede Their Acceptance of the User Agreement and the Included
`Arbitration Provision By Suing to Enforce It and Alleging its Validity....................17
`Plaintiffs Must Arbitrate Their Causes of Action On An Individual Basis. ..............19
`D.
`The Court Should Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint In Its Entirety. ..............................22
`E.
`CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................23
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`- i -
` No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG
`DEFENDANT STUBHUB, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`AND MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHS. IN SUPPORT
`
`
`
`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.
`
`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 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 39 Filed 02/12/21 Page 5 of 33
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Aanderud v. Superior Court,
`13 Cal. App. 5th 880 (2017) ........................................................................................................11
`
`Airtourist Holdings LLC v. HNA Group,
`2018 WL 3069444 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2018) .......................................................................18, 22
`
`Ajzenman v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball,
`2020 WL 6037140 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2020) .................................................................... passim
`
`AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion,
`563 U.S. 333 (2011) ...............................................................................................................10, 11
`
`Barnes v. StubHub, Inc.,
`2019 WL 11505575 (S.D. Fla. October 3, 2019)...............................................................1, 13, 17
`
`Bentley v. The Control Grp. Media Co.,
`2020 WL 3639660 (S.D. Cal. July 6, 2020) ..........................................................................18, 22
`
`Beserra v. Allied Ins.,
`2015 WL 12826456 (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2015) ...........................................................................21
`
`Boucher v. All. Title Co.,
`127 Cal. App. 4th 262 (2005) ................................................................................................18, 22
`
`Brookfield Commc’ns, Inc. v. W. Coast Entm’t Corp.,
`174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999) .....................................................................................................20
`
`C2 Educational Sys., Inc., v. Lee,
`2018 WL 3328143 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2018) ................................................................................20
`
`Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc.,
`207 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) .....................................................................................................11
`
`Clifford v. Quest Software Inc.,
`38 Cal. App. 5th 745 (Ct. App. 2019), review denied (Nov. 13, 2019) .......................................21
`
`Coast Plaza Doctors Hosp. v. Blue Cross of Calif.,
`83 Cal. App. 4th 677 (2000) ........................................................................................................15
`
`Colopy v. Uber Techs. Inc.,
`2019 WL 6841218 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2019) .............................................................................22
`
`Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd,
`470 U.S. 213 (1985) .........................................................................................................11, 12, 15
`- ii -
` No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG
`DEFENDANT STUBHUB, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`AND MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHS. IN SUPPORT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 39 Filed 02/12/21 Page 6 of 33
`
`
`
`DeVries v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc.,
`2017 WL 733096 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2017) ...............................................................................13
`
`Dickey v. Ticketmaster LLC,
`2019 WL 9096443 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2019) .............................................................................13
`
`Dohrmann v. Intuit, Inc.,
`823 Fed. Appx. 482 (9th Cir. Aug. 11, 2020) ..............................................................................13
`
`Dupler v. Orbitz, LLC,
`2018 WL 6038309 (C.D. Cal. July 5, 2018) ................................................................................13
`
`Eiess v. USAA Federal Savings Bank,
`404 F. Supp. 3d 1240 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .......................................................................................22
`
`Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis,
`138 S.Ct. 1612 (2018) ..................................................................................................................19
`
`Eshagh v. Terminix Int’l Co.,
`588 Fed. Appx. 703 (9th Cir. 2014) .............................................................................................19
`
`Graf v. Match.com, LLC,
`2015 WL 4263957 (C.D. Cal. July 10, 2015) ..............................................................................13
`
`Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph,
`531 U.S. 79 (2000) .......................................................................................................................11
`
`Griswold v. Coventry First LLC,
`762 F.3d 264 (3d Cir. 2014).........................................................................................................18
`
`Guadalupe Police Officer’s Ass’n v. City of Guadalupe,
`2011 WL 13217671 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2011) ...........................................................................21
`
`Hansen v. Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc.,
`2020 WL 7319358 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2020) .......................................................................13, 14
`
`In re Holl,
`925 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2019) .....................................................................................................14
`
`Hopkins & Carley, ALC v. Thomson Elite,
`2011 WL 1327359 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2011) ...............................................................................22
`
`Int’l Paper Co., v. Schawbedissen Maschinen & Anlagen GMBH,
`206 F.3d 411 (4th Cir. 2000) .......................................................................................................18
`
`Johnson v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
`2018 WL 4726042 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2018) ............................................................................22
`
`- iii -
` No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG
`DEFENDANT STUBHUB, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`AND MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHS. IN SUPPORT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 39 Filed 02/12/21 Page 7 of 33
`
`
`
`Kilgore v. Keybank, N. A.,
`718 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) .....................................................................................11
`
`Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio Inc.,
`771 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2014) .......................................................................................................11
`
`KPMG LLP v. Cocchi,
`565 U.S. 18 (2011) .......................................................................................................................10
`
`Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela,
`139 S.Ct. 1407 (2019) ..................................................................................................................11
`
`Larson v. Speetjens,
`2006 WL 2567873 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2006) ........................................................................18, 22
`
`Lee v. Ticketmaster LLC,
`817 Fed. Appx. 393 (9th Cir. June 10, 2020) ........................................................................12, 13
`
`Lockyer v. Mirant Corp.,
`398 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2005) .....................................................................................................23
`
`Luxor Cabs, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co.,
`30 Cal. App. 5th 970 (2018) ..........................................................................................................7
`
`Magana v. DoorDash, Inc.,
`343 F. Supp. 3d 891 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ...................................................................................20, 21
`
`McGill v. Citibank, N.A.,
`2 Cal. 5th 945 (2017) ........................................................................................................... passim
`
`Mortensen v. Bresnan Comm. LLC,
`722 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2013) .....................................................................................................11
`
`Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp.,
`460 U.S. 1 (1983) .........................................................................................................................17
`
`Murphy v. DirecTV, Inc.,
`724 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2013) ...............................................................................................17, 22
`
`Needleman v. Golden 1 Credit Union,
`474 F. Supp. 3d 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .......................................................................................11
`
`Nitro-Lift Techs., L.L.C. v. Howard,
`568 U.S. 17 (2012) (per curiam) ..................................................................................................11
`
`Peter v. DoorDash, Inc.,
`445 F. Supp. 3d 580 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .............................................................................12, 13, 14
`
`- iv -
` No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG
`DEFENDANT STUBHUB, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`AND MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHS. IN SUPPORT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 39 Filed 02/12/21 Page 8 of 33
`
`
`
`Sherwood Mktg. Grp., LLC v. Intertek Testing Servs., N.A., Inc.,
`2018 WL 672515 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018) ...........................................................................18, 22
`
`Sponheim v. Citibank, NA.,
`2019 WL 2498938 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2019) .............................................................................21
`
`Stolt-Nielson S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp.,
`559 U.S. 662 (2010) .....................................................................................................................19
`
`Swift v. Zynga Game Network, Inc.,
`805 F. Supp. 2d 904 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ...................................................................................12, 14
`
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office v. Booking.com B. V.,
`140 S. Ct. 2298 (2020) .................................................................................................................21
`
`Yun Park v. MSX Americas, Inc.,
`2019 WL 5285446 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2019) ................................................................................18
`
`Statutes
`
`Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq.) ..........................................................................10, 23
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1114 ................................................................................................................................20
`
`Other Authorities
`
`USPTO Trademarks, “FanProtect,”
`
`https://uspto.report/TM/85281779 (last visited Feb. 11, 2021) ...................................................21
`
`StubHub, Coronavirus Update,
`https://support.stubhub.com/en/support/solutions/articles/61000276296 (last visited Feb. 2,
`2021) ..............................................................................................................................................4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
` No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG
`DEFENDANT STUBHUB, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`AND MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHS. IN SUPPORT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 39 Filed 02/12/21 Page 9 of 33
`
`
`
`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
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`Defendant StubHub, Inc. respectfully submits this Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
`support of its Motion to Compel Arbitration.
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`The Complaint filed by 56 Plaintiffs and alleging 31 causes of action seeks to avoid existing
`precedent in the Ajzenman and Barnes cases and to dodge contractual commitments to arbitrate
`disputes with StubHub. The CAC, at its core, seeks monetary damages stemming from an alleged
`breach of Plaintiffs’ contract with StubHub. Yet the CAC provides no factual or legal basis to
`accomplish Plaintiffs’ misplaced objective. All Plaintiffs purchased tickets using StubHub
`marketplace after consenting to the current version of the arbitration clause that clearly, and lawfully,
`provides for the arbitration of the instant dispute on an individual basis. None of the 56 Plaintiffs
`can or do contend that any of their claims falls outside of the arbitration provision’s scope. None of
`the 56 Plaintiffs can or do assert they opted out of the arbitration provision. Indeed, the CAC suffers
`from the incurable problem that Plaintiffs seek the benefits of the StubHub User Agreement, namely
`their view that refunds are proper under the contract, while ignoring the binding arbitration provision
`in that very same contract. Plaintiffs are estopped from suing to enforce the User Agreement and
`attempting to disavow, simultaneously, the legal and binding arbitration provision that they find
`unfavorable. Moreover, the predictable attempt in the CAC to plead a public injunctive relief theory
`fails on multiple fronts. First, this is a private dispute among StubHub and certain disgruntled
`customers where the thrust of Plaintiffs’ case is their desire for monetary refunds. Second, there is
`no prospective, public injunctive relief that is warranted under the actual allegations in the CAC.
`Third, even if there were a viable public injunctive relief theory, such a claim would be properly
`stayed pending the arbitrations. Accordingly, StubHub respectfully requests that this Honorable
`Court compel arbitration on all claims in the CAC on an individual basis against all Plaintiffs, and
`otherwise stay any non-arbitrable claims.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
` No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG
`DEFENDANT STUBHUB, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`AND MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHS. IN SUPPORT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 39 Filed 02/12/21 Page 10 of 33
`
`
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`The Parties.
`A.
`StubHub is an online ticket marketplace on which users and guests can buy or sell tickets or
`other related passes for theater, concerts, sports events, or other entertainment events. (CAC ¶ 75.)
`StubHub is not the seller of the tickets, but does receive a commission for tickets bought or sold using
`StubHub. (See id. ¶¶ 75, 76; Declaration of Todd Northcutt dated Feb. 9, 2021, ¶ 2) (hereafter,
`“Northcutt Decl.”). Plaintiffs allege they are citizens of Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia,
`Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New
`Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and
`Wisconsin. (CAC ¶¶ 19–74.) Each Plaintiff signed up for StubHub when there was an arbitration
`provision. (Northcutt Decl. ¶ 30.) Each Plaintiff alleges the purchase of tickets using StubHub
`between September 12, 2019 and July 24, 2020 for an event that was scheduled to take place in
`2020.1 (CAC ¶¶ 19–74; Northcutt Decl. ¶¶ 36–204.)2
`Allegations Against StubHub.
`B.
`Fundamentally, all Plaintiffs are subject to four unassailable truths: (1) they all assented to
`the same arbitration provision when they made the subject ticket purchases at issue in this case; (2)
`they all saw language explaining that by signing up, signing in, and/or purchasing the subject tickets,
`Plaintiffs agreed to be bound by the StubHub User Agreement and arbitration provision; (3) none of
`the Plaintiffs ever opted out of the arbitration provision after being notified of their opt-out rights;
`and (4) the Plaintiffs do not allege that any cause of action falls outside of the scope of the arbitration
`provision.
`Plaintiffs generally allege that StubHub failed to issue refunds for events impacted by
`COVID-19. (CAC ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs allege they “viewed and relied upon the FanProtect Guarantee
`
`
`1 Plaintiffs Paul Koble and Richard Huante actually purchased the tickets at issue after StubHub
`modified the User Agreement on March 25, 2020, which is the subject of the instant dispute.
`(Northcutt Decl. ¶¶ 107, 95.) Plaintiffs Emma Goodacre and Amy Gutierrez further registered for
`StubHub accounts after March 25, 2020. (Id. ¶¶ 72, 84.) Accordingly, these Plaintiffs have no
`claim whatsoever under the facts averred in the CAC.
`2 Appendix A to this Motion and Memorandum provides a chart with detailed information
`regarding each Plaintiff’s sign-up, purchase, and use of StubHub.
`
`- 2 -
` No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG
`DEFENDANT STUBHUB, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`AND MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHS. IN SUPPORT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 39 Filed 02/12/21 Page 11 of 33
`
`
`
`prior to their ticket purchases.” (Id. ¶¶ 6, 187.) These admissions show Plaintiffs saw and relied on
`the terms of the StubHub User Agreement, wherein the FanProtect Guarantee resides. (See Northcutt
`Decl. ¶ 7.) The User Agreement upon which Plaintiffs relied to purchase the subject tickets contained
`the same arbitration provision, as well as the same prominent warning of the arbitration provision, at
`all times that Plaintiffs’ purchased the tickets at issue in this action. (Id. ¶¶ 28–30, Ex. A.) Not a
`single Plaintiff opted out of arbitration. (Id. ¶ 34.) Plaintiffs do not even allege that their claims fall
`outside the scope of the arbitration provision. Moreover, the same notifications indicating agreement
`to the User Agreement by signing up, signing in, purchasing, or continuing to use StubHub were in
`place at the time of each Plaintiff’s purchase at issue here. (Id. ¶¶ 12–18.) All Plaintiffs received a
`confirmation email subsequent to their respective ticket purchases again notifying them that they
`assented to a contract with StubHub and again providing a bolded, offset colored hyperlink to the
`User Agreement and its binding arbitration provision. (Id. ¶ 35.) Plaintiffs primarily seek damages
`in the form of refunds as their principal remedy. (CAC at 78–80.)
`The StubHub Ticket Marketplace.
`C.
`StubHub provides an online ticket marketplace; it is not the “seller” of the tickets on its site.3
`(CAC ¶¶ 75, 76; Northcutt Decl. ¶ 2.) Both registered users and guests can utilize the StubHub ticket
`marketplace, but every user, whether registered or a guest, must agree to and accept the StubHub
`User Agreement: no one can buy or sell tickets using StubHub without agreeing to the terms of the
`User Agreement. (Northcutt Decl. ¶ 6.) The StubHub User Agreement contains the terms and
`conditions that govern the relationship between StubHub and one that uses its site or services. (Id. ¶
`9.) A true and correct copy of the current User Agreement, which includes the arbitration provision
`in place when Plaintiffs purchased the tickets at issue in this action through StubHub, is attached to
`the Northcutt Declaration as Exhibit A.
`
`
`3 Plaintiffs concede this fact by alleging that StubHub earns only a fee from ticket transactions
`made using its site and services. (CAC ¶¶ 75, 76.)
`
`- 3 -
` No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG
`DEFENDANT STUBHUB, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`AND MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHS. IN SUPPORT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 39 Filed 02/12/21 Page 12 of 33
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Plaintiffs Accepted The StubHub User Agreement During The StubHub
`Registration, Sign-In, and/or Purchasing Process.
`As the CAC acknowledges, Plaintiffs made their purchases using StubHub’s site and services.
`(See CAC ¶¶ 19–74.) StubHub’s records indicate that all Plaintiffs made the purchases at issue in
`this action between September 12, 2019 and July 24, 2020.4 (Northcutt Decl. ¶¶ 36–204.)
`Importantly, none of the Plaintiffs ever allege that they requested a refund and were denied a refund.
`Moreover, some Plaintiffs have received and used the 120% credit provided by StubHub for
`cancelled events. For example, Plaintiff Anthony Fattori purchased tickets on July 24, 2020 for a
`Five Seconds of Summer concert scheduled for June 23, 2021, using the credit he received after the
`cancellation of the Kesha concert he originally purchased tickets for.5 (Id. ¶ 38.)
`As a condition of signing up for their StubHub accounts and/or making their purchases using
`StubHub, Plaintiffs all agreed to the StubHub User Agreement. (See id. ¶ 6.) The operative StubHub
`User Agreement (the “Current User Agreement”) was updated as permitted by the terms of the User
`Agreement, and posted on StubHub’s site, along with a list of all changes thereto, on March 25, 2020.
`(Id. ¶¶ 10, 20, Ex. A.)
`The registered Plaintiffs signed up for their StubHub user accounts by completing the User
`Registration Form. (See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 36–37, 39–40, 42–43.) A prospective user acknowledges
`acceptance of the StubHub User Agreement (including StubHub’s policies and procedures referenced
`therein) by clicking a “Sign up” button on the StubHub website, found immediately above a statement
`that reads: “By purchasing or signing in, you agree to our user agreement and privacy notice.” (Id.
`¶ 12.)6 The notification contains bold, underlined, and offset color typeface that is hyperlinked to
`the User Agreement and is in close proximity to the “Sign up” button. (Id.)
`
`
`4 Further information regarding the details of each Plaintiffs’ individual purchases is included in the
`Northcutt Declaration. (Id. at ¶¶ 36–204.)
`5 Credits issued by StubHub for events cancelled due to COVID-19 do not expire until December
`31, 2022. See StubHub, Coronavirus Update,
`https://support.stubhub.com/en/support/solutions/articles/61000276296 (last visited Feb. 2, 2021).
`6 App users, as opposed to website users, receive a similar message with bolded text hyperlinks that
`states: “By signing up, you agree to our user agreement and privacy notice.” (Northcutt Decl. ¶
`12.)
`
`
`- 4 -
` No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG
`DEFENDANT STUBHUB, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`AND MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHS. IN SUPPORT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 39 Filed 02/12/21 Page 13 of 33
`
`
`
`The same, or substantially similar, language existed in the User Agreement in bold, underlined, and
`offset color type when Plaintiffs created their StubHub accounts and agreed to and accepted the User
`Agreement. (Id. at ¶ 13.)
`For Plaintiffs that checked out as a guest, they were notified of and assented to the StubHub
`User Agreement during the checkout and purchase process. When a user—guest or registered—
`checks out and purchases tickets to an event on the website, a pop-up screen displays and states, “By
`purchasing or signing in, you agree to our user agreement and acknowledge our privacy notice.”
`(Id. ¶ 15.)
`
`- 5 -
` No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG
`DEFENDANT STUBHUB, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`AND MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHS. IN SUPPORT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 39 Filed 02/12/21 Page 14 of 33
`
`
`
`
`The notice contains hyperlinks, in offset, bolded, and colored typeface, to the current version of the
`StubHub User Agreement, again in bolded and prominent font in close proximity to the guest
`checkout button. (Id.)
`StubHub includes additional mechanisms by which users are notified of and reaffirm
`agreement to the StubHub User Agreement and related policies. When a registered user clicks “Sign-
`In” to log into their StubHub account on the website, a prominent pop-up screen displays and again
`states, “By purchasing or signing in, you agree to our user agreement and acknowledge our privacy
`notice.” (Id. ¶ 17.)
`
`The notices contain hyperlinks, in offset, bolded, and colored typeface, to the current version of the
`StubHub User Agreement, again in bolded and prominent font in close proximity to the sign-in
`button. (Id.) This additional mechanism by which registered users reaffirm agreement to and
`acceptance of the User Agreement, was in place when Plaintiffs made the purchases at issue in this
`case. (Id. ¶ 18.)
`And, in the confirmation email sent to all Plaintiffs after their purchases on StubHub, they
`each received the following notification: “This email was sent to [Plaintiff email address] by
`StubHub, Inc., 199 Fremont Street, Floor 4, San Francisco, CA 94105, USA, which may use affiliates
`to provide StubHub services. Please refer to the user agreement for the contact data of your
`
`- 6 -
` No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG
`DEFENDANT STUBHUB, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`AND MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHS. IN SUPPORT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 39 Filed 02/12/21 Page 15 of 33
`
`
`
`contracting party. StubHub is committed to your privacy. Learn more about our privacy notice and
`user agre

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