I.C. v. Zynga, Inc.
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-01539
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In I.C. v. Zynga, Judge Rogers allowed plaintiffs’ surreply, denied Zynga’s response request, and limited the upcoming hearing to standing.
I.C. and the other plaintiffs, and Zynga Inc.
What happened
I.C. v. Zynga, Inc. is a putative class action involving Zynga’s renewed request to compel arbitration and motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs asked to file a surreply addressing a recent Supreme Court decision that Zynga discussed in its reply.
The court granted plaintiffs’ request to file the surreply and denied Zynga’s request to respond to it. The court said the parties could address the issue at the scheduled hearing.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers stated that the hearing on the motion to dismiss would focus only on standing, and that the court would address the merits if necessary after resolving standing. The order terminated Docket Number 86.
The detailed version
- I.C. v. Zynga, Inc. · No. 4:20-cv-01539
- Yvonne Rogers
- July 23, 2021
Background
This putative class action had pending before the court Zynga Inc.’s renewed motion to compel arbitration and motion to dismiss. Both motions were scheduled for a July 27, 2021 hearing. Plaintiffs separately filed an administrative motion for permission to file a surreply—a written filing responding to arguments or material raised in a reply—to address the Supreme Court’s recent decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez. The opinion states that the decision was issued after plaintiffs filed their opposition and that Zynga addressed it in its reply.
Zynga opposed plaintiffs’ request or, alternatively, asked for permission to respond to the surreply.
Ruling
The court granted plaintiffs’ administrative motion for leave to file a surreply and denied Zynga’s request to respond to the surreply. The court advised that the parties could address the issue at the hearing. It further stated that the hearing on Zynga’s motion to dismiss would focus only on standing, meaning whether plaintiffs were entitled to bring the claims in court. The court said it would address the merits, if necessary, after resolving the standing issue. The order terminated Docket Number 86.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.