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
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00525-RSL Document 494 Filed 08/16/22 Page 1 of 5
`
`
`
`The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`
`ADRIENNE BENSON and MARY
`SIMONSON, individually and on behalf of all
`others similarly situated,
`
`
`Case No. 18-cv-00525-RSL
`
`IGT DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION
`TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A
`TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`DOUBLE DOWN INTERACTIVE, LLC,
`et al.,
`
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
` International Game Technology and IGT (“IGT Defendants”) respectfully request leave
`to submit this opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order in order to emphasize
`two points: (1) plaintiffs cite no jurisdictional basis to enjoin Double Down Interactive Co. Ltd.
`(“DDI Co. Ltd.”) or any other corporate affiliates of Double Down Interactive, LLC (“DDI”); and
`(2) any substantive ruling by this Court in the near term is likely to setback the significant progress
`the parties have made in recent weeks to resolve this case. Because there is no jurisdictional basis
`to impose injunctive relief on DDI Co. Ltd. or other corporate affiliates of DDI, and because any
`substantive ruling by the Court at this point in time would irreparably compromise the parties’
`productive settlement discussions, the IGT Defendants respectfully request that this Court deny
`plaintiffs’ motion.
`
`IGT DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION
`TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A
`TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
`(Case No.: 18-CV-00525-RSL)
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`999 Third Avenue, Suite 3900
`Seattle, WA 98104-4040
`Telephone: (206) 332-1380
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00525-RSL Document 494 Filed 08/16/22 Page 2 of 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
`
`Plaintiffs Cannot Enjoin A Non-Party.
`
`Throughout this litigation, plaintiffs have ignored the fact that DDI, International Game
`Technology, and IGT are separate legal entities when it comes to their substantive claims. Given
`that this issue is the subject of pending motions involving the IGT Defendants, e.g., Dkts. 289 &
`330, the IGT Defendants have an interest in opposing any argument in which plaintiffs ask the
`Court to disregard the corporate form, as they have in their request for injunctive relief with respect
`to DDI and its corporate affiliates.
`Plaintiffs claim Rule 65(d)(2)(C) permits the far-ranging relief requested in their motion.
`Dkt. 482 at 3. But Rule 65 does not “authoriz[e] injunctive relief against non-parties,” as plaintiffs
`assert. See 11A Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ.
`§ 2956 (3d ed.) (“A court ordinarily does not have power to issue an order against a person who is
`not a party and over whom it has not acquired in personam jurisdiction.”); Fregia v. Miranda, No.
`1:21-cv-01068-AWI-BAM (PC), 2021 WL 2948650, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 14, 2021) (“The Court’s
`jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this
`action is proceeding.”).
`Instead, Rule 65(d)’s effect of binding persons “in active concert or participation with” an
`enjoined party only prevents a party from evading an order by acting through or with another entity
`– the Rule does not authorize a court to enjoin a non-party over which it does not have jurisdiction.
`See Regal Knitwear Co. v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 9, 14 (1945); Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Rsch.,
`Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969); Lake Shore Asset Mgmt. Ltd. v. CFTC, 511 F.3d 762, 766–67
`(7th Cir. 2007) (“The only defendant in the CFTC’s suit is Lake Shore Asset Management, which
`must be the sole addressee of the injunction. The injunction may direct Lake Shore to do things
`within its power—such as turning over its books and records—but may not impose obligations
`directly on other members of the corporate group.”).
`Plaintiffs’ motion effectively inverts the Rule by seeking to prevent DDI’s affiliates from
`taking actions of their own. Plaintiffs’ requested relief – “to employ all available measures and
`
`IGT DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION
`TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A
`TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
`(Case No.: 18-CV-00525-RSL)
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`999 Third Avenue, Suite 3900
`Seattle, WA 98104-4040
`Telephone: (206) 332-1380
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00525-RSL Document 494 Filed 08/16/22 Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`powers to ensure that no DoubleDown entity makes any extraordinary expenditures of cash” –
`plainly seeks to enjoin DDI Co. Ltd. and other DDI affiliates as if they can and should be deemed
`no different than DDI. Dkt. 482-1 ¶2. But because the Court does not have jurisdiction to grant
`relief against DDI’s corporate affiliates, plaintiffs’ motion must be denied.1
`
`Plaintiffs’ Motion Has Disrupted The Mediation Process.
`
`In formal proceedings with Phillips ADR and separate direct negotiations, the parties have
`made significant progress towards the resolution of this litigation in recent weeks. And although
`the IGT Defendants are not inclined to waive mediation privilege, they can represent that they
`have had good discussions with DDI, plaintiffs, and Phillips ADR as the parties work hard to find
`common ground. Further, the IGT Defendants are committed to continuing these efforts with a
`second, in-person, mediation session before Judge Phillips (ret.) scheduled for August 26, 2022.
`Plaintiffs’ motion has significantly disrupted this process. Shortly after the Court ordered
`Joe Sigrist to appear in person, plaintiffs suddenly withdrew their settlement offers. Given the
`chilling effect plaintiffs’ motion has had on settlement negotiations, the IGT Defendants are
`concerned that any substantive ruling will irreparably compromise the parties’ ability to resolve
`this litigation anytime soon. Therefore, in addition to denying plaintiffs’ motion for the reason
`above, the IGT Defendants respectfully request that the Court continue to refrain from ruling on
`any substantive motion until the parties have completed settlement negotiations, through and
`including the in-person mediation with Judge Phillips (ret.) on August 26, 2022.
`
`
`To the extent plaintiffs seek injunctive relief with respect to DDI itself, they have made no
`1
`showing of exigent circumstances that requires injunctive relief with respect to DDI at this time.
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`IGT DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION
`-3-
`999 Third Avenue, Suite 3900
`TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A
`Seattle, WA 98104-4040
`TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
`(Case No.: 18-CV-00525-RSL)
`Telephone: (206) 332-1380
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00525-RSL Document 494 Filed 08/16/22 Page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`Dated: August 16, 2022
`
`
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`
`
`/s/ James R. Morrison
`James R. Morrison, WSBA No. 43043
`Logan F. Peppin, WSBA 55704
`999 Third Avenue, Suite 3900
`Seattle, WA 98104
`Tel: (206) 332-1380
`Fax: (206) 624-7317
`jmorrison@bakerlaw.com
`lpeppin@bakerlaw.com
`
`John M. Touhy (pro hac vice)
`David M. Friebus (pro hac vice)
`One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Tel: (312) 416-6200
`Fax: (312) 416-6201
`jtouhy@bakerlaw.com
`dfriebus@bakerlaw.com
`
`Paul G. Karlsgodt, WSBA No. 40311
`1801 California Street, Suite 4400
`Denver, CO 80202
`Tel: (303) 861-0600
`Fax: (303) 861-7805
`pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com
`
`IGT DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION
`TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A
`TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
`(Case No.: 18-CV-00525-RSL)
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`999 Third Avenue, Suite 3900
`Seattle, WA 98104-4040
`Telephone: (206) 332-1380
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00525-RSL Document 494 Filed 08/16/22 Page 5 of 5
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on this day I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the
`Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record.
`
`DATED August 16, 2022.
`
`
`/s/ DeAnne Adams
`DeAnne Adams
`Legal Assistant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IGT DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION
`TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A
`TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
`(Case No.: 18-CV-00525-RSL)
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`999 Third Avenue, Suite 3900
`Seattle, WA 98104-4040
`Telephone: (206) 332-1380
`
`