Crawford v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

[3] 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [6] 7 BRANDI CRAWFORD, Case No. 3:20-cv-01732-JD 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE ARBITRATION v. [9] Re: Dkt. No. 19 10 SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC, [11] Defendant. [12] 13 Plaintiff Brandi Crawford alleges that her minor son spent more than $1,000 without her 14 permission in the Fortnite video game hosted on the PlayStation Network (PSN) operated by 15 defendant Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC (SIE). Crawford sued on behalf of herself and a 16 putative class of other parents whose kids spent money in SIE’s games without permission. 17 Crawford’s minor son is not a party, and she has not been designated a guardian ad litem. She 18 alleges declaratory relief and a variety of California state law claims. See generally Dkt. No. 1. 19 SIE requests an order sending the case to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act 20 (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 2 . Dkt. No. 19. The motion is granted, and the case is stayed pending further 21 order. 22 The parties’ familiarity with the record is assumed. Crawford forthrightly acknowledges 23 that “[d]efendants are correct that Plaintiff is bound by the arbitration and class action waivers for 24 transactions in which she engaged.” Dkt. No. 22 at 1.1 Crawford accepted SIE’s System Software 25 Licensing Agreement (SSLA) and Terms of Service and User Agreement (ToSUA), both of which 26 contain agreements to arbitrate disputes and waivers of proceeding on a class action basis. She [27] 1 does not challenge SIE’s evidence showing that she agreed to the SSLA and ToSUA as conditions 2 of operating the console and accessing the PSN. See Dkt. No. 19-1 ¶¶ 3-6. Crawford also does 3 not dispute that these agreements were made in connection with the console used by her son, and 4 that a fair proportion of the PSN charges were incurred in Crawford’s own account. Id. ¶ 7 . 5 The SSLA and ToSUA each have broad dispute resolution clauses that impose bilateral 6 arbitration requirements on SIE and consumers under the FAA. See Dkt. No. 19-1, Exh. 1 ¶ 9 7 (SSLA); Exh. 2 at p. 17-19 (ToSUA). Each agreement defines “disputes” to include challenges to 8 “the validity, enforceability or scope” of the arbitration clause. Id. Each agreement expressly 9 incorporates the Consumer and Commercial Rules of the American Arbitration Association 10 (AAA) to govern the arbitration proceedings. Id. Each agreement also contains a class action 11 waiver. Id. 12 Crawford has not raised any objections to arbitration on grounds of contract formation, or 13 substantive or procedural unconscionability. See Dkt. No. 22. Her sole argument against 14 arbitration is that her minor son could not be bound by a contract under California law. Id. at 2-6 . 15 That may be, but it is beside the point for present purposes. That is because the complaint alleges 16 a dispute entirely between Crawford and SIE. Crawford is the only named plaintiff, and the only 17 injury alleged is the money she personally lost after unsuccessfully seeking a refund from SIE. 18 See Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 51, 58. That dispute is wholly within the scope of the arbitration clause, as 19 Crawford recognizes. 20 Consequently, a referral to arbitration is required. Under the FAA, “‘the district court’s 21 role is limited to determining whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and, if so, whether the 22 agreement encompasses the dispute at issue.’” See Williams v. Eaze Sols., Inc., 417 F. Supp. 3d 23 1233, 1239 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (quoting Lifescan, Inc. v. Premier Diabetic Servs., Inc., 363 F.3d 24 1010, 1012 (9th Cir. 2004)). “If the party seeking to compel arbitration establishes both factors, 25 the district court ‘must order the parties to proceed to arbitration.’” Id. (quoting Lifescan, 363 26 F.3d at 1012). “Any doubts about the scope of arbitrable issues should be decided in favor of 27 arbitration.” Id. (internal citations omitted). To the extent any questions remain about the 1 AAA tules has delegated those issues to the arbitrator. /d. at 1241; see also Brennan vy. Opus 2 || Bank, 796 F.3d 1125, 1130 (9th Cir. 2015). Crawford did not specifically challenge the delegation 3 || clause, and so it will be enforced. See Williams, 417 F. Supp. 3d at 1241. 4 The case is ordered to arbitration. It is stayed and administratively closed pending further 5 order. See 9 U.S.C. § 3 . The parties are directed to file joint status reports every 90 days, and to 6 || promptly advise the Court of a settlement or other resolution. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: March 30, 2021 [10] JAMES JPONATO I United States District Judge [12] © [16] = 17 Z 18