Cheryll Dougherty, et al. v. Zynga Inc.

N.D. California

Cheryll Dougherty, et al. v. Zynga Inc.

DecidedDecember 30, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-04051

StatusUnknown

This text of Cheryll Dougherty, et al. v. Zynga Inc. (Cheryll Dougherty, et al. v. Zynga Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cheryll Dougherty, et al. v. Zynga Inc., (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CHERYLL DOUGHERTY, et al., Case No. 25-cv-04051-SI

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL 9 v. BRIEFING AND VACATING HEARING 10 ZYNGA INC.,

11 Defendant.

12 13 Now pending before the Court are multiple motions by defendant Zynga, Inc. in this 14 proposed class action case alleging violations of California consumer law and the federal Video 15 Privacy Protection Act. The Court advises the parties that it is inclined to grant defendant’s motion 16 to transfer venue to the Southern District of New York, in light of the forum selection clause 17 contained in the Take-Two Terms of Service applicable to plaintiffs’ claims. However, the Court 18 finds supplemental briefing from plaintiffs would be helpful. Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion to 19 compel arbitration or, alternatively, transfer venue focuses almost entirely on the arbitration 20 agreement and devotes only one page to venue question. See Dkt. No. 41. As the ones “seeking to 21 avoid a forum selection clause,” plaintiffs “bear[] a ‘heavy burden’ to establish a ground upon which 22 [the Court] will conclude the clause is unenforceable.” See Doe 1 v. AOL LLC, 552 F.3d 1077, 1083 23 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 17 (1972)). Accordingly, 24 plaintiffs are ORDERED to file a supplemental brief—not to exceed five pages in length— 25 addressing whether “extraordinary circumstances unrelated to the convenience of the parties clearly 26 disfavor a transfer.” See Atl. Marine Const. Co., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 571 U.S. 49, 52 (2013)). 27 Plaintiffs’ brief is due no later than January 12, 2026. 1 later date if it determines that oral argument is needed. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: December 30, 2025 Stn Ml ee 5 eee em SUSAN ILLSTON 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CHERYLL DOUGHERTY, et al., Case No. 25-cv-04051-SI

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL 9 v. BRIEFING AND VACATING HEARING 10 ZYNGA INC.,

11 Defendant.

12 13 Now pending before the Court are multiple motions by defendant Zynga, Inc. in this 14 proposed class action case alleging violations of California consumer law and the federal Video 15 Privacy Protection Act. The Court advises the parties that it is inclined to grant defendant’s motion 16 to transfer venue to the Southern District of New York, in light of the forum selection clause 17 contained in the Take-Two Terms of Service applicable to plaintiffs’ claims. However, the Court 18 finds supplemental briefing from plaintiffs would be helpful. Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion to 19 compel arbitration or, alternatively, transfer venue focuses almost entirely on the arbitration 20 agreement and devotes only one page to venue question. See Dkt. No. 41. As the ones “seeking to 21 avoid a forum selection clause,” plaintiffs “bear[] a ‘heavy burden’ to establish a ground upon which 22 [the Court] will conclude the clause is unenforceable.” See Doe 1 v. AOL LLC, 552 F.3d 1077, 1083 23 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 17 (1972)). Accordingly, 24 plaintiffs are ORDERED to file a supplemental brief—not to exceed five pages in length— 25 addressing whether “extraordinary circumstances unrelated to the convenience of the parties clearly 26 disfavor a transfer.” See Atl. Marine Const. Co., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 571 U.S. 49, 52 (2013)). 27 Plaintiffs’ brief is due no later than January 12, 2026. 1 later date if it determines that oral argument is needed. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: December 30, 2025 Stn Ml ee 5 eee em SUSAN ILLSTON 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Cheryll Dougherty, et al. v. Zynga Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cheryll-dougherty-et-al-v-zynga-inc-cand-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack