Dinslage v. ARB Gaming, LLC
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:25-cv-02562
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Dinslage v. ARB Gaming, Judge Chhabria remanded the case because Dinslage lacked federal standing to seek an injunction.
Dinslage and ARB Gaming, LLC; the case returns to Napa Superior Court.
What happened
In Dinslage v. ARB Gaming, LLC, Dinslage alleged that ARB Gaming violated California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act by operating an illegal gaming website. He sought an injunction preventing ARB from operating the website in California.
Dinslage argued that the case belonged in state court because he did not allege that he planned to use ARB’s website again, so he had not shown a future injury required for federal-court standing. ARB argued that Dinslage’s gambling addiction supported an inference that he might return, but the court declined to speculate that he would create a new account in violation of the website’s terms.
Judge Vince Chhabria granted the motion to remand and directed the Clerk to return the case to Napa Superior Court. The court found no standing for the requested injunction in federal court, but concluded that California law appears to require past injury and loss of money or property—not a future injury allegation—for this type of public injunction.
The detailed version
- Dinslage v. ARB Gaming, LLC · No. 3:25-cv-02562
- Vince Chhabria
- May 16, 2025
Background
Dinslage alleged that ARB Gaming, LLC violated California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act by operating an illegal gaming website. He sought a public injunction—an order intended primarily to stop unlawful conduct threatening future harm to the general public—from operating the website in California.
The case was in federal court, and Dinslage moved to remand it to state court. He argued that he lacked Article III standing to seek injunctive relief because he did not allege an intention to return to ARB’s website. Dinslage alleged that he has a gambling addiction and previously used the website, where he lost money. ARB had shut down his account, and ARB stated that returning would require Dinslage to violate the website’s terms by creating a new account.
Federal Standing
The court held that Dinslage had not shown the future injury required for standing to seek an injunction in federal court. The court rejected ARB’s argument that it should infer Dinslage would return because of his gambling addiction. Such an inference would require assuming both that Dinslage could not stop using ARB’s website rather than another gambling option and that he would violate the website’s terms to create another account. The court stated that there was no standing to seek injunctive relief and that the issue was not close.
State-Court Standing and Disposition
ARB argued that the case should be dismissed rather than remanded because Dinslage would also lack standing in state court. The court disagreed. It explained that California’s Unfair Competition Law requires a plaintiff seeking a public injunction to have suffered an injury in fact and lost money or property because of the alleged unfair competition. But California decisions cited in the opinion require only past injury in fact for this type of claim, and ARB cited no California authority requiring an allegation of future injury.
Judge Vince Chhabria granted the motion to remand. The Clerk was directed to remand the case to Napa Superior Court.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.