![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Central District of California
November 29, 2022, Decided; November 29, 2022, Filed
Case No. 8:22-cv-00998-SSS-ADSx
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR MOOTNESS OR, IN THE ALTERNTATIVE, TO COMPEL ARBITRATION [DKT. 19]
Before the Court is Defendant Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.'s ("Blizzard") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Y.H.'s Complaint for Mootness or, in the alternative, to Compel Arbitration ("Motion"). [Dkt. 19]. The Motion is fully briefed and ripe for consideration. For the following reasons, Blizzard's Motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff Y.H.'s father had an online game account with Blizzard. [Dkt. 19 at 9, lines 6-7]. To create his account Y.H.'s father accepted Blizzard's End User License Agreement ("EULA"). [Dkt. 19-2 at 2, ¶4]. The EULA includes an arbitration agreement [*2] and class action waiver. [Dkt. 19-6 at 23-25]. To keep his account active, Y.H.'s father accepted each of the EULA's as Blizzard amended and issued them. [Dkt. 19-2 at 3, ¶6].
One of the games Y.H's father had in his account with Blizzard was a game called Hearthstone. [Dkt. 19 at 9, lines 8-9]. Y.H. played Hearthstone using her father's account. [Dkt. 19 at 10, ¶27]. While she played, Y.H., using her father's credit and debit cards on file, bought several card packs and expansion packs for the game.1 [Dkt. 1-1 at 10, ¶¶27-28]. Y.H. did not have her father's permission to make these purchases. [Dkt. 1-1 at 10, ¶28]. Y.H. did not receive the cards she was hoping to receive and no longer plays Hearthstone. [Dkt. 1-1 at 11, ¶¶31-32].
Y.H. initiated this suit on May 3, 2022. [Dkt. 1-1]. On May 16, 2022, counsel for both parties met and conferred. [Dkt. 19-at 2, ¶5]. At that meeting counsel for Blizzard stated that "Blizzard accepted Y.H.'s disaffirmation of the purchases asserted in the Complaint, and Blizzard would issue a refund of these purchases in their entirety." [Dkt. 19-1 at 3, ¶6]. On June 21, 2022, counsel for Y.H. informed Blizzard that Y.H.'s purchases totaled $1,179.71. [*3] [Dkt. 19-1 at 3, ¶7]. Counsel for Y.H. instructed counsel for Blizzard to make the check payable to Y.H. [Dkt. 19-1 at 3, ¶7]. Counsel for Blizzard mailed the check to Y.H. and received a delivery receipt on June 24, 2022. [Dkt. 19-1 at 3, ¶8].
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222661 *; 2022 WL 17491821
Y.H., individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant.
Prior History: Y.H. v. Blizzard Entm't, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191259 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 19, 2022)
disaffirm, arbitration, moot, purchases, arbitration agreement, motion to dismiss, allegations