Estavillo v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.

Background

Erik Estavillo sued Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. in California state court. The opinion states that Blizzard was erroneously sued as “Activision Blizzard, Inc.” Estavillo represented himself. He alleged that he has Depression, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Panic Disorder, and Crohn’s Disease, and that these conditions make socializing outside his apartment difficult. He alleged that he relied heavily on video games for communication and socialization and that playing video games helped him occupy his time and distract him from his disabilities.

Estavillo played Overwatch until Blizzard banned him for “abusive chat,” a justification he disputed. He alleged that he could not obtain a refund for approximately $300 he had spent in Blizzard’s digital storefront on loot boxes and multiple copies of the game. His two claims were that Blizzard violated California Civil Code § 1723 by failing to state on the front of its digital store that returns or refunds were unavailable, and that Blizzard violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to clearly disclose return and refund information on its digital storefront and end-user license agreement. He sought injunctive and equitable relief, compensatory damages, and $100,000 in punitive damages.

Blizzard removed the case to federal court because the ADA claim raised a federal question. It moved to dismiss both claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim for relief.

Judicial notice

The court granted in part and denied in part Blizzard’s request for judicial notice. It declined to take judicial notice of Exhibits 1–13 and 18–22, finding them unnecessary to the analysis. It took judicial notice of Exhibits 14–17, which included materials from a prior related proceeding involving Estavillo and screenshots from Blizzard’s website. The court found those materials appropriate for judicial notice because their contents could be accurately determined from sources whose accuracy could not reasonably be questioned, or because the complaint referred to the website.

ADA claim

The court dismissed the ADA claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Title III of the ADA prohibits disability discrimination in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation. The court explained that Ninth Circuit precedent requires some connection between the challenged good or service and an actual physical place.

Estavillo relied on a decision involving a grocery-store website that was inaccessible to people with impaired vision who used screen readers. The court found that decision distinguishable and not binding. In that case, the website was closely integrated with physical grocery stores and operated as a gateway to those stores by providing features such as digital coupons, store locations, and prescription refills.

The court found that Estavillo had not alleged facts showing that Blizzard’s digital storefront had a similar connection to, or operated as a gateway to, physical stores. It therefore concluded that the complaint did not state an ADA claim. The court dismissed the ADA claim with prejudice and without leave to amend. It dismissed the claim under Rule 12(b)(6), rather than for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, because Blizzard was entitled to have the federal court decide the federal claim even if the claim lacked merit.

California claim and fees

After dismissing the ADA claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s power to hear related state-law claims—over Estavillo’s remaining claim under California Civil Code § 1723. The court remanded that claim to the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, for adjudication.

Blizzard requested attorney fees and costs, arguing that California law permits a prevailing defendant to recover fees when a plaintiff acts in bad faith. The court did not award fees or costs because it had remanded the § 1723 claim to state court.

Disposition

The court dismissed Estavillo’s ADA claim under Rule 12(b)(6) with prejudice and without leave to amend, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining § 1723 claim, and remanded that claim to the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara.