Reeves

Reeves v. Niantic, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMay 31, 20223:21-cv-05883California1,124 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JARRETT REEVES, Case No. 21-cv-05883-VC

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

v. DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

DISMISS

NIANTIC, INC.,

Re: Dkt. No. 28, 29 Defendant.

The motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. The request for judicial notice is denied as moot because the Court did not consider any of the attached documents. 1. Reeves has stated a UCL claim for unlawful and unfair practices. See I.B. ex rel. Fife v. Facebook, Inc., 905 F. Supp. 2d 989, 1010–11 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (discussing unfair business practices). In California, a person may disaffirm a contract made while they were a minor at any time before they reach the age of majority (18) or “within a reasonable time afterwards.” Cal. Fam. Code § 6710. Reeves plausibly alleges that Niantic has violated this statute. Shortly after his 18th birthday, Reeves filed this lawsuit against Niantic, disaffirming several purchases of PokeCoins he made before he turned 18. But according to the complaint, Niantic has not refunded his purchases. Reeves has not, however, stated a UCL claim based in fraud because…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.