SAN DIEGO (Legal Newsline) - Class action lawyers won't be pursuing their case against the maker of the digital card game Hearthstone in their preferred venue.
San Diego federal judge Sunshine Sykes on Oct. 19 rejected their motion to remand their case back to state court, finding Blizzard Entertainment had justification for removing the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act.
A girl known as Y.H., through guardian Nathan Harris, filed suit May 3 in California's Orange County Superior Court against Blizzard Entertainment, which removed the case to federal court on May 17.
At issue are virtual packs that players can buy to upgrade their deck of cards. But customers don't know what is inside the packs when buying them.
"Defendant's unfair, deceptive and unlawful practices of allowing players, including minors, to pay real-world currency to gamble on winning in-game items, as well as refusing to provide refunds to minors who made in-game purchases, deceive, mislead and harm consumers, especially minor children who comprise a large segment of Defendant's player population," the suit says.
"Plaintiff and other consumers have been injured as a result of Defendant's practices, including but not limited to, having suffered out-of-pocket losses."
The plaintiff is represented by Eugene Turin of McGuire Law in Chicago. His attempt to get back to Orange County Superior Court was complicated by a refund to his client.
"Because removal was proper, Y.H.'s motion to remand in response to Blizzard's motion to dismiss is only appropriate if there has not been a change in circumstances stripping the action of subject matter jurisdiction," Sykes wrote.
"Here, Blizzard accepted Y.H.'s disaffirmation and gave her a ful refund after the action had already been removed. Blizzard's acceptance of Y.H.'s disaffirmation suggests that Y.H.'s individual claims ar moot and could undermine Y.H.'s class complaint - therefor, calling into question whether there have been sufficient changes in circumstances warranting Blizzard's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."