November 9th, 2007 by Benjamin Duranske
Earlier this year, a class action lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of Florida on behalf of nearly every World of Warcraft (“WoW”) player, naming one of the largest virtual property companies, Internet Gaming Entertainment (“IGE”), as defendant. WoW player Antonio Hernandez is named plaintiff. The class has not yet been certified.
Not much has happened in the case up to now, but since motion practice is starting to heat up and class certification is potentially on the horizon, VB will begin paying closer attention to filings.
As we kick off coverage of another lawsuit, please keep two things in mind. First, understand that for professional reasons, VB doesn’t comment on active filings, though we do run key excerpts and point out things that are so anomalous that most litigators would notice them. And second, remember that the filings, because they’re advocacy documents, tend to put everything in a light most favorable to the party that filed them.
The most recent filing in this case is a motion (.pdf via Justia) to stay the case in favor of arbitration, allegedly as required by defendant’s contracts with Blizzard (of which plaintiffs say they were the intended beneficiaries). In the alternate, defendants ask that the case be dismissed in favor of jurisdiction in California. A response was supposed to be filed by now, but plaintiffs received a fairly routine, unopposed, ten-day extension of time to respond. VB will run excerpts from the response as soon as it is filed.
Excerpts from Defendant’s motion to stay or dismiss the case follow.
Plaintiff alleges that he, and the members of the alleged classes, are parties to the ToU and EULA with Blizzard. Am. Comp., ¶¶ 14-15. Thus, Plaintiff, and the purported class members, have already specifically agreed to the dispute resolution and arbitration provisions in the ToU and EULA agreements, albeit with Blizzard.
For this reason, even a non-signatory third-party beneficiary is bound by the terms of a contract containing an arbitration clause. See id. (where a contract contains an arbitration clause, a third-party beneficiary is bound by the arbitration provision to the same extent as one of the signatories); see also E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co. v. Rhone Poulenc Fiber and Resin Intermediates, S.A.S., 269 F.3d 187, 195 (3d Cir. 2001) (“[W]hether seeking to avoid or compel arbitration, a third-party beneficiary has been bound by contract terms where its claim arises out of the underlying contract to which it was an intended third-party beneficiary.”).
The ToU and EULA both provide that “[a]ny Dispute not subject to arbitration (other than claims proceeding in any small claims court), or where no election to arbitrate has been made, shall be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction within the County of Los Angeles, State of California, United States of America, and you and Blizzard agree to submit to personal jurisdiction of that court.” See ToU, ¶ 16E, EULA, ¶ 14E. Because it uses the word “shall,” the forum selection clause in this case is mandatory, and dictates that the County of Los Angeles is the exclusive forum. See Global Satellite Communication Co., 378 F.3d at 1272 (holding forum selection clause providing that “[v]enue shall be in Broward County,” is most reasonably interpreted to mandate venue in Broward County alone because it uses the imperative “shall”).
Related Posts on Virtually Blind
- Hernandez v. IGE Class Action Litigation Update: Response to Motion to Dismiss Filed: "Last month, Hernandez v. IGE defendant IGE filed a motion (.pdf, via..." (5 comments)
- Hernandez Seeks Class Certification in Case Against Virtual Property Dealer IGE: "Plaintiff Antonio Hernandez yesterday filed a motion seeking class..." (9 comments)
- Hernandez v. IGE Class Action Update – Defendant IGE Withdraws Motion, Will Answer Complaint: "Hernandez v. IGE defendant virtual property dealer IGE yesterday..." (0 comments)
One Response to “Hernandez v. IGE Class Action Litigation Update: Motion to Dismiss or Stay Lawsuit Filed”
Leave a Reply
Notes on Comments: Your first comment must be manually approved, but after it is you'll be able to post freely with the same name and email. You can use some HTML (<a> <b> <i> <blockquote> etc.) but know that VB's spam blocker holds posts with five or more <a> links. VB supports gravatars. Got a gravatar? Use the associated email and it'll show with your comment. Need one? Set it up for free here.