Soucek

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIELLE SASS, et al., Case No. 23-cv-04146-VC

Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

v. DENYING IN PART BASED PLATE'S

MOTION TO DISMISS

ROBLOX CORPORATION, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 146 Defendants.

The motion to dismiss is granted as to the CFAA and trespass to chattels claims and denied as to the rest of the claims. This order assumes the reader’s familiarity with the facts, governing legal standards, and arguments made by the parties. 1. Personal Jurisdiction. Based Plate argues that Roblox has not adequately alleged facts supporting personal jurisdiction. But Roblox alleged enough to support an inference that Based Plate consented to jurisdiction under Roblox’s Terms of Use agreement. See, e.g., Facebook, Inc. v. ILikeAd Media, 2022 WL 2289064, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2022); Interactive, Inc. v. Johnston, 2018 WL 1449525, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2018).1 That agreement states that “any dispute” not subject to arbitration “may only be litigated in the federal or state courts of San Mateo County, California, and User and Roblox consent to jurisdiction in those courts for…