Dougherty v. Zynga Inc.
- Susan Illston
- 3:25-cv-04051
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Dougherty v. Zynga, Judge Illston ordered supplemental briefing on whether to transfer the proposed class action, while vacating the hearing.
The order affects the plaintiffs and Zynga Inc. by requiring supplemental briefing on venue and changing the hearing schedule; it does not finally resolve the transfer or arbitration motions.
What happened
Cheryll Dougherty and other plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against Zynga Inc., alleging violations of California consumer law and the federal Video Privacy Protection Act. Zynga asked the court to compel arbitration or transfer the case.
The court said it was inclined to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York because of a forum-selection clause in the applicable Take-Two Terms of Service. The court did not make a final transfer ruling and instead ordered the plaintiffs to file a supplemental brief of no more than five pages.
Judge Susan Illston directed the plaintiffs to address whether extraordinary circumstances unrelated to the parties’ convenience clearly disfavor transfer. The brief was due January 12, 2026, and the court vacated the hearing.
The detailed version
- Dougherty v. Zynga Inc. · No. 3:25-cv-04051
- Susan Illston
- Dec. 30, 2025
Background
The case is a proposed class action alleging violations of California consumer law and the federal Video Privacy Protection Act. Zynga had filed multiple motions, including a motion to compel arbitration or, alternatively, to transfer the case to another federal district.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that it was inclined to grant Zynga’s motion to transfer venue to the Southern District of New York. The court relied on a forum-selection clause in the Take-Two Terms of Service that the court said applied to the plaintiffs’ claims.
The court noted that the plaintiffs’ opposition focused almost entirely on the arbitration agreement and devoted only one page to the venue issue. It stated that parties seeking to avoid a forum-selection clause bear a heavy burden to show that the clause is unenforceable. The court therefore requested more briefing on whether “extraordinary circumstances unrelated to the convenience of the parties clearly disfavor a transfer.”
Order
The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a supplemental brief addressing that question. The brief could not exceed five pages and was due no later than January 12, 2026. The court vacated the hearing and stated that it could set a later date if oral argument became necessary. The order expressed an inclination to transfer the case but did not state that the transfer motion was granted.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.