UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case
No: 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff JOSE AGUIRRE, Plaintiff, on Behalf
of a Putative Class, vs.CLASS ACTION DRAFTKINGS, INC. Defendant.
______________________/ PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION Case
1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015
Page 1 of 25i Table of Contents Page I.Summary of Plaintiffs
Argument
..............................................................................1
II.Argument
......................................................................................................................2
A.MR. AGUIRRE DID NOT AGREE TO ARBITRATE CLAIMS
................................2 1.Policy Favoring Arbitration is
Inapplicable to Contract-Formation Issues Raised by Plaintiff
.................................................2 2.Ambiguities as
to the Existenceof an Agreement to Arbitrate Must Be Strictly
Construed Against DraftKings
............................................................................................3
3.The Terms of Use Inconsistently Calls for (1) Litigation and (2)
Arbitration of Mr. Aguirres Claim
......................................4 4.DraftKings Promise to
Arbitrate is Illusory ....................................7
a)DraftKings Unilateral Right Amend Any Term at Any Time for Any
Reason and Without Any Notice Renders the Terms of Use Per Se
Unenforceable ......................7 b)The Arising-Prior and
Survival Clauses Cannot Save the Arbitration Agreement
..............................................11 c)DraftKings
Disclaims the Accuracy of its Supposedly Binding Terms of Use
..........................................12 d)DraftKings Disclaims
its Promise to be Bound by an Arbitrator
.............................................................................13
B.THE ARBITRATION PROVISION IS UNENFORCEABLE AS UNCONSCIONABLE
...........................................................................................14
1.The Arbitration Agreement Violates Florida Law by Waiving
Punitive-Damages Liability for Fraud
.............................14 2.The Arbitration Agreement
Violates Florida Law by Denying Consumers Injunctive ReliefWhile
Preserving DraftKings Right to an Injunction
..............................15 3.The Arbitration Agreement Shocks
the Conscience by (1) Reserving for DraftKings the Right to All
Damages Available Under the Law While (2) Completely Insulating
DraftKings from All Liability for Any Act ....................16
4.Offending Terms Cannot be Severed
...............................................19 III.Conclusion
..................................................................................................................20
IV.Request for Hearing
...................................................................................................20
Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket
06/19/2015 Page 2 of 251 PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION Plaintiff, Jose
Aguirre, as representative of a putative class, respectfully
requests that this
CourtdenyDraftKings,Inc.s(DraftKings)motiontocompelarbitration,andsubmitsthis
supporting memorandum of law: I.Summary of Plaintiffs Argument
Preoccupied with salvaging an unconscionable arbitration clause,
DraftKings forgets that the parties never agreed to arbitrate in
the first place. The Terms of Use, cited by DraftKings to compel
arbitration, actually contains a compulsory litigation clause. The
provision mandates that
allclaimsarisingfromcustomersuseofDraftKingswebsiteacategorythatindisputably
includes Mr. Aguirres claimbe litigated in a court of competent
jurisdiction. Yet on the same
pageofitsTermsofUse,DraftKingspurportstomandatethatthoseclaimsbesubmittedtoan
arbitrator.DraftKingsapparentsolutiontothiscontradictionignorethelitigationclauseand
enforcethearbitrationclausedefiesbasicprinciplesofcontractformation.Becausethese
clausescannotbereconciled,therewasnomeetingofthemindsastoaformofdispute
resolution, and thus necessarily no agreement to arbitrate.This
Court need not even reach the conclusion above, however, because
the Terms of Use containing the arbitration clause is not a valid
contract. In the document, DraftKings reserves the right to, at any
time, revoke, alter, and amend any of its obligations under the
Terms of Use, at its sole discretion and without notice to its
customers. Because this reservation renders DraftKings
promisesillusory,itrobstheagreementofconsideration,preventingtheformationofavalid
contract. Because arbitration is solely a creature of contract, it
cannot be imposed here.
EvenassumingthisCourtdeciphersanactualagreementtoarbitrate,thatagreementis
unenforceableasunconscionable.Amongotherinfirmities,theagreement(1)inoneportion
Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket
06/19/2015 Page 3 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 2
precludes Mr. Aguirre from filing suit in court,1 while explicitly
affording DraftKings that right; (2) limits Mr. Aguirres recovery
in arbitration to (depending on the portion of the Terms of Use)
either $100 or $0, while allowing DraftKings to recover ad
infinitum; (3) preserves DraftKings
righttoobtaininjunctiverelief,whileusurpingconsumers;and(4)insulatesDraftKingsfrom
punitive damages for fraud, in violation of Florida law. In tandem,
these terms are so one-sided and oppressive as to shock the
conscience and necessitate denial of Defendants motion. II.Argument
Absentavaliddelegationtoanarbitrator,thefederaldistrictcourtsaretaskedwith
determining(A)whetherpartiesagreedtoarbitrateand(B)ifso,whethertheagreementis
enforceable.GraniteRockCo.v.IntlBhd.OfTeamsters,561U.S.287,299(2010).Asthe
Terms of Use does not contain a delegation clause, these issues are
properly before the Court. A.MR. AGUIRRE DID NOT AGREE TO ARBITRATE
CLAIMS
DraftKingsspendsnearlyitsentiremotionattemptingtofortifythearbitrationclause
againstargumentsofunconscionability.Thecourtneednotconsiderthisissuetodeny
Defendants motion, as the parties never reached an arbitration
agreement.
1.PolicyFavoringArbitrationisInapplicabletoContract-Formation
Issues Raised by Plaintiff
DraftKingsnotesthattheFederalArbitrationAct(FAA)embodiesastrongpublic
policyinfavorofarbitration.Thispresumption,however,isapplicableonlyindetermining
whetherandhowtoenforceanarbitrationprovisiontowhichpartieshaveagreednotin
determining the threshold matter whether an agreement to arbitrate
exists. The courts uniformly hold that while doubts concerning the
scope of an arbitration clause should be resolved in favor
1Instarkcontrast,ofcourse,withtheportionoftheagreementmandatingthatMr.Aguirrefilesuitincourt,not
arbitrate. Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD
Docket 06/19/2015 Page 4 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 3
ofarbitration,thepresumptiondoesnotapplytodisputesconcerningwhetheranagreementto
arbitratehasbeenmade.Goldman,Sachs&Co.v.GoldenEmpireSch.Fin.Auth.,764F.3d
210, 215 (2nd Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the presumption favoring
arbitrability does not apply to Plaintiffs argument that Mr.
Aguirre did not agree to arbitrate the claims. 2.Ambiguities as to
the Existence of an Agreement to Arbitrate Must Be Strictly
Construed Against DraftKings
Anarbitrationagreementmustbeenforceableunderordinarystate-lawcontract
principles in order for the Court to find that the agreement is
valid. Collado v. J. & G. Transp., Inc., 2015 WL 1478609, at *3
(S.D. Fla. 2015) (internal quotations omitted). Pursuant to Florida
law,2notonlyshouldarbitrationcontract-formationissuesnotbeinterpretedinfavorof
arbitrability, any ambiguities should be interpreted against
DraftKings as the documents author.
DSLInternetCorp.v.TigerDirect,Inc.,907So.2d1203,1205(Fla.3dDCA2005)(Florida
lawrequiresthatacontractbeinterpretedagainstthedrafterwhenthecontractcontains
ambiguousterms.).Moreover,becausetheTermsofUseisacontractofadhesion,thisCourt
shouldnotjustmerelyconstrue,butratherstrictlyconstrue,anyambiguityagainstDraftKings.
Bakerv.SecuritasSec.ServicesUSA,Inc.,432F.Supp.2d120,124(D.Me.2006)(rulethat
ambiguities are to be interpreted against the drafter is heightened
in cases where the parties to
thecontractareinunequalbargainingpositions)(internalquotationsomitted);Mulcahyv.
NaborsWellServicesCo.,2010WL1881846,at*2(D.Mont.2010)(ambiguityinarbitration
agreement should be construed most strongly against drafter). This
rule is of particular import to the inconsistent-provisions issue
raised directly below. 2 Since, as argued below, therewas no
meeting oftheminds regarding the entire Terms of Use, the
Massachusetts
choice-of-lawclausewasneveragreedto.SeeNote5,infra.Regardless,giventhesimilaritiesinFloridaand
Massachusetts law, it does not matter which states
contract-formation principles govern; the same result would lie.
Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket
06/19/2015 Page 5 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 4
3.TheTermsofUseInconsistentlyCallfor(1)Litigationand(2) Arbitration
of Mr. Aguirres Claim The Terms of Use provides: Any claim or
dispute betweenyou and DraftKings that arises in whole or in part
fromtheTermsofUse,theWebsiteoranyContestshallbedecidedexclusively
by a court of competent jurisdiction located in Suffolk County
Massachusetts.
TermsofUse(TOU)at8.3Thisprovisionsignalstocustomersthatanylegaldispute
involvingDraftKingswebsite,liketheclaimofMr.Aguirreandtheputativeclass,mustbe
litigated in court. The civil action must, according to the
contract drafted by DraftKings, be filed in Suffolk County,
Massachusetts.4 An aggrieved customer reading this clause would
know that
arbitrationisnotanoption.Afterall,anyclaimordisputebetween[thecustomer]and
DraftKingsthatarisesinwholeorinpartfromtheTermsofUse,theWebsiteoranyContest
shall be decided exclusively by a court of competent jurisdiction
TOU at 8 (emphasis added).
Nonetheless,onthesamepageasthislitigationclause,theTermsofUseprovidefor
arbitration:
[a]nyandalldisputes,claimsorcontroversiesarisingoutoforrelatingtothis
Agreement, the breach thereof or any use of the Websiteexcept for
claims filed
inasmallclaimscourtshallbesettledbybindingarbitrationbeforeasingle
arbitratorappointedbytheAmericanArbitrationAssociation("AAA")in
accordancewithitsthengoverningrulesandprocedures,includingthe
SupplementaryProceduresforConsumer-RelatedDisputes,whereapplicable.In
agreeing to arbitrate allClaims,you and DraftKings waive all rights
to a trial by jury in any action or proceeding involving any Claim.
TOU at 8.
DraftKingscannotreasonablydisputethatthesamecontractsimultaneouslycalls,asto
3 A copy of the Terms of Use is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
4Plaintiffmakesnoteofthevenueclausenotbecauseitisbinding,butbecauseitiscompletelyinconsistentwith
arbitration in thatit requires theuseof acourt for
disputeresolution.Aselaborated upon extensively elsewherein this
response, because the two dispute-resolution provisionsof which
this venue clause is partare irreconcilable, both are void.
Accordingly, Mr. Aguirre filed suit in the Southern District, where
venue is proper in lieu of a valid contractual provision. Case
1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015
Page 6 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 5 all disputes
stemmingfrom Mr. Aguirres use of the website, for (1) trial in a
courtof lawand (2) arbitration.The contradictory provisions doom
DraftKings motion to compel, as [b]efore a party to a lawsuit can
be ordered to arbitrate and thus be deprived of a day in court,
there should be an express, unequivocal agreement to that effect.
Samson v. NAMA Holdings, LLC, 637 F.3d
915,923(9thCir.2011)(emphasisadded)(citationomitted).Aprovisionthat(1)tellsa
consumer to litigate then (2) tells her to arbitrate is the
opposite of unequivocal. The Florida Supreme Courts decision in
Basulto v. Hialeah Automotive, 141 So.3d 1145
(Fla.2014)isdeterminative.InBasulto,oneclausemandatedabench,ratherthanjury,trial;
anothermandatedarbitrationwiththreearbiters;andathirdclausemandatedarbitrationwitha
sole arbiter. Id. at 1150. The Florida Supreme Court agreed with
the trial court that each of the
competingdisputeresolutionprovisionscontemplatestheenforcementofadifferentremedy
whosetermsandconditionsareirreconcilable...Id.TheFloridaSupremeCourtaffirmedthe
trial courts finding as a matter of law that there was no meeting
of the minds with respect to the terms bywhich [the dealership]
intended the parties to be bound. There is accordingly no valid
agreement for this Court to enforce. Id.
ThefederalcourtsareinlinewithFloridashighcourt.See,e.g.,Stephensv.TES
Franchising,2002WL1608281,at*3(D.Conn.2002)(denyingmotiontocompelarbitration
where one provision stated thatall claims must be brought before a
courtand another indicated that all trademark disputes are subject
to binding arbitration); Mulcahy, 2010 WL 1881846, at *2
(motiontocompelarbitrationdeniedwhereclauseambiguousastoarbitrationbecauseitis
susceptible to at least two reasonable but conflicting
interpretations: (1) that it preserves a party's
constitutionalrighttoajurytrialandaccesstotheCourtsand(2),thatitrestrictsthatrightby
mandatingbindingarbitration.);LeaTaiTextileCo.,Ltd.v.ManningFabrics,Inc.,411F.
Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket
06/19/2015 Page 7 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 6
Supp.1404,1407(S.D.N.Y.1975)(findingnoagreementtoarbitratewheretwoprovisionsare
inhopelessconflict).Inescapably,andfatally,theTermsofUsecallforthesimultaneous
litigationandarbitrationofthesameclaimsincludingMr.Aguirresclaims.Thisdestroys
DraftKings attempt to force arbitration.
Additionalinconsistenciesastodisputeresolutionabound.Forexample,theTermsof
Use state: ANYATTEMPTBYANENTRANTORANYOTHERINDIVIDUALTO
DELIBERATLYDAMAGETHEWEBSITEORUNDERMINETHE
LEGITIMATEOPERATIONOFANYCONTESTISAVIOLATIONOF CRIMINAL AND/OR CIVIL
LAWS AND SHOULD SUCH AN ATTEMPT BE
MADE,DRAFTKINGSRESERVESTHERIGHTTOSEEKDAMAGESAND OTHER REMEDIES FROM
ANY SUCH PERSON TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW.
TOUat3(emphasisadded).Thisprovisioncontrastsstarklywiththearbitrationclause.
Adisputearisingfromonesattempttodeliberatelydamagethewebsiteorunderminethe
legitimateoperationofanycontestonthewebsiteunmistakablyisadisputearisingout
ofanyuseoftheWebsiteand,perthearbitrationclauseDraftKingsitselfwrote,necessarily
shallbesettledbybindingarbitrationbeforeasinglearbitrator.TOUat8.YetDraftKings
reserves the right to seek damages and other remedies from any such
person to the fullest extent permitted by lawa right that by
definition includes suit in court.
Elsewhere,theTermsofUseprovidethat[t]heCompany,atitssolediscretion,may
disqualify any entrant from a Contest, refuse to award benefits or
prizes and require the return of any prizes, if the entrant engages
in conduct the Company deems to be improper [or] unfair...,
andthat[u]sersfurtheracknowledgethattheforfeitureand/orreturnofanyprizeshallinno
waypreventDraftKingsfrompursuingcriminalorcivilproceedingsinconnectionwithsuch
conduct. TOUat 2. A dispute concerning any improper[or] unfair
conduct an entrant might Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered
on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 8 of 25CASE NO.
15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 7 engage in regarding an online contest
is, by definition, a disputearising out ofany use of the
Website,TOUat8,andsupposedlysubjecttomandatoryarbitration.Yet,contrarytoitsown
arbitration clause, DraftKings reserves, for itself only, the right
to pursue civil court proceedings
inconnectionwithsuchconduct.Thisunilateralprerogativetocommencecourtproceedings
squarelydefiesDraftKingsargumentthatthepartiesmutuallyagreedtoarbitrateall
disagreements. 4.DraftKings Promise to Arbitrate is Illusory
a)DraftKings Unilateral Right to Amend Any Term at Any Time for
AnyReasonandWithoutAnyNoticeRenderstheTermsofUse Per Se
Unenforceable
A basic tenet of contract law [is] that in order for a promise
to be enforceable against the
promisor,thepromiseemusthavegivensomeconsiderationforthepromise.Gibsonv.
NeighborhoodHealthClinics,Inc.,121F.3d1126,1130(7thCir.1997).Whereapromisor
mayperformornot,solelyontheconditionofhiswhim,hispromisewillnotserveas
consideration.JohnsonEnterprisesofJacksonville,Inc.v.FPLGroup,Inc.,162F.3d1290,
1311(11thCir.1998)(citationsomitted).Mostpertinenthere,[w]hereapromisorretainsan
unlimitedrighttodecidelaterthenatureorextentofhisperformance,thepromiseistoo
indefinite for legal enforcement. The unlimited choice in effect
destroys the promise and makes it merely illusory, and the contract
fails for lack of consideration. Floss v. Ryan's Steak Houses, 211
F.3d 306, 316 (6th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). These axioms
apply to arbitration clauses. An arbitration agreement allowing one
party the unfettered right to alter the arbitration agreements
existence or its scope is illusory and thus
unenforceable.Dumaisv.Am.GolfCorp.,299F.3d1216,1219(10thCir.2002).Here,the
arbitrationclausewaspartoftheTermsofUse,whichDraftKingscouldamendanytime,
Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket
06/19/2015 Page 9 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 8
unilaterally and without notice:
DraftKingsreservestherighttoamendtheseTermsofUseatanytimeand
without notice, and it is your responsibility to review these Terms
of Use for any
changes.IfyoucontinuetousetheServicesafterwechangetheTermsofUse,
you accept all changes. TOU at 9. Accordingly, at any timeeven
while a potential litigant is playing the fantasy
sportscontestthatformsthebasisofadisputeDraftKingscouldchangeitsobligationsunder
the contract. Even after Mr. Aguirre had been aggrieved, DraftKings
could impose additional
obligationsuponMr.Aguirre,relieveitselfofanyofitsobligations,orbothallwithout
notifying Mr. Aguirre.
IfPlaintiffwishedtocompelarbitration,DraftKingscouldsimplyremovetheprovision
fromtheTermsofUseuponMr.Aguirresselectionofthatremedy,oralterthearbitration
clause so that it does not cover Mr. Aguirres claim. Because
DraftKings can at any time change
orrelieveitselfofthearbitrationagreement,itdidnotactuallyagreetoanything.SeeInre
Zappos.com,Inc.,Sec.BreachLitig.,893F.Supp.2d1058,1066(D.Nev.2012)(deeming
contractillusory,andrefusingtocompelarbitration,where,ifaconsumersoughttoinvoke
arbitrationpursuanttotheTermsofUse,nothingwouldpreventZapposfromunilaterally
changing the Terms and making those changes applicable to that
pending dispute if it determined that arbitration was no longer in
its interest.). DraftKings unlimited choice regarding whether
tobeboundornot,andbywhichterms,destroysthepromiseandmakesitmerelyillusory,
causing the contract to fail for lack of consideration. Floss, 211
F.3d at 316.
Dumaisv.AmericanGolfCorp,299F.3d1216(10thCir.2002)isinstructive.Dumais
had filed an EEOC complaint against her former employer. Id. at
1218. The employer moved to
compelarbitration,citingahandbookprovisionthatcontainedanarbitrationclausebutalso
Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket
06/19/2015 Page 10 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 9
reservedAmericanGolfsrighttoamend,supplement,orreviseeverythinginthe[h]andbook
with the exception of the employees at-will status. Id. at 1217.
The district court constru[ed] the [h]andbook against the drafter
(American Golf) and found that the agreement was invalid
becauseitwasillusory,lackedmutuality,andwasnotsupportedbyconsideration,reasoning
thattheagreementbinds[Dumais]butallows[AmericanGolf]freereintorenege.This
lopsided agreement is illusory because it allows [American Golf] to
unilaterally modify the terms
atanytime.Id.at1218.TheTenthCircuitaffirmed,holdingthatanarbitrationagreement
allowing one party the unfettered right to alter the arbitration
agreements existence or its scope is illusory. Id. at 1219.
DraftKings reservation of the right to amend the[] Terms of Use at
any time and without notice, TOU at 9, is indistinguishable from
American Golfs right to amend, supplement, or revise everything in
the handbook.
FurtherguidanceisprovidedbyDouglasv.JohnsonRealEstateInvestors,LLC,470F.
Appx823(11thCir.2012)(applyingMassachusettslaw).5ThePlaintiffinDouglasfiledan
employmentage-discriminationclaim.Id.at824.Thedefendantarguedthataclauseinthe
employeehandbookdemandedbindingarbitration.Id.Douglasarguedthattheagreementto
arbitrate was illusory, as Johnson reserved the right to at any
time, change, revise, supplement,
discontinue,orrescindanyorallofsuchconditions,policies,benefitsandproceduresorany
otherprovisionofthisHandbookfromtimetotime,asitdeemsnecessaryorappropriateinits
solediscretion,withorwithoutnoticetoemployees.Id.TheEleventhCircuitfoundthat
5DraftKingscitestothechoice-of-lawprovisionintheTermsofUsetoallegethatthedocumentshouldbe
construedpursuanttothesubstantivelawofMassachusetts.Becausetheentirecontractisillusory,thereisno
contract and thus no choice-of-law provision. In absence of an
agreement, Florida substantive law should be used to construe the
contract. See Grupo Televisa, S.A. v. Telemundo Communications
Group, Inc., 485 F.3d 1233,
1240-41(11thCir.2007).If,arguendo,thisCourtfindstheTermsofUseenforceablegenerally,Massachusettslaw
would, by contract, be used to determine whether the arbitration
and litigation clauses conflict, as alleged in Section
II.A.3,supra,ofthisresponse,andwhetherthearbitrationclauseisunconscionable,asallegedinSectionII.B.,
infra.ThesameresultdenialofforcedarbitrationwouldresultwhetherFloridaorMassachusettsprinciples
applied, as the laws are substantially similar. Case
1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015
Page 11 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 10
becauseJohnsoncouldmodifythe[agreement]unilaterallythatis,withoutDouglass
agreementorknowledgeitspromisetoarbitratewasillusory,andrefusedtocompel
arbitration. Id at 826.
InreZappos.com,Inc.,Sec.BreachLitig.,893F.Supp.2d1058(D.Nev.2012)
demonstratesthattheholdingsofDumaisandDouglasaretherule,nottheexception.Inthat
case,thetermsofusepurportedly[bound]anyuseroftheZappos.comwebsitetomandatory
arbitration,butifaconsumersoughttoinvokearbitrationpursuanttotheTermsofUse,
nothing would prevent Zappos from unilaterally changing the Terms
andmaking those changes applicable to that pending dispute if it
determined that arbitration was no longer in its interest. Id. at
1066. The Court noted that, [i]n effect, the agreement allows
Zappos to hold its customers
anduserstothepromisetoarbitratewhilereservingitsownescapehatch[,leaving]
Zapposfree at any time to require a consumer to arbitrate and/or
litigate anywhere it sees fit. Id.The court joined those other
federal courts that find such arbitration agreements illusory and
therefore unenforceable. Id. (surveying case law). This case
demands the same result.
IfthisCourtweretofindthatcustomershadotherwiseretainedtheirrighttoforce
DraftKingstoarbitrate,thatrightisquicklydashedbythisterminationclause:Inadditionto
anyotherlegalorequitableremedy,DraftKingsmay,withoutpriornotice,immediatelyrevoke
any or all of your rights granted hereunder. TOU at 5. Were Mr.
Aguirre to elect arbitration to
settlethisclaim,thisclausewouldaffordDraftKingstheabilitytosay,Sorry.Weare
immediatelyrevok[ing]anyor all ofyour rightsgranted by the Terms of
Use, includingyour
righttocompelarbitration.BecausetheterminationclauseensuresthatDraftKings,asthe
promisor, may perform or not, solely on the condition of [its]
whim, [its] promise [can]not serve as consideration. Johnson
Enterprises of Jacksonville, Inc. v. FPL Group, Inc., 162 F.3d
1290, Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket
06/19/2015 Page 12 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 11 1311
(11th Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted).
Formultiplereasons,then,thearbitrationagreement,aspartoftheTermsofUse,is
devoid of consideration and void ab initio.
b)TheArising-PriorandSurvivalClausesCannotNotSavethe Arbitration
Agreement
TheterminationclauseaboveispartoftheTerminationandEffectofTermination
section of the Terms of Use, which more fully provides: In addition
to any other legal or equitable remedy, DraftKings may, without
prior
notice,immediatelyrevokeanyorallofyourrightsgrantedhereunder.Insuch
event,youwillimmediatelyceaseallaccesstoanduseoftheDraftKings
Website.DraftKingsmayrevokeanypassword(s)and/oraccountidentification
issuedtoyouanddenyyouaccesstoanduseoftheWebsite.Anysuchaction
shallnotaffectanyrightsandobligationsarisingpriorthereto.Allprovisionsof
theTermsofUsewhichbytheirnatureshouldsurviveterminationshallsurvive
termination,including,withoutlimitation,ownershipprovisions,warranty
disclaimers, indemnity and limitations of liability.
TOUat5.Thenotificationthatrevocationofrightsshallnotaffectanyrightsand
obligationsarisingprior,TOUat5(thearising-priorclause),doesnotsavethisillusory
contractbecauseDraftKingsisnotboundbytheprovision.Norisitboundbythesurvival
clauses,whichallegethattheprovisionsoftheTermsofUsewhichbytheirnatureshould
survive termination shall survive termination, TOU at 5, and that
the arbitration provision shall survive termination of this
agreement. TOU at 8.
DraftKingsomnipotentamendmentclauseassuresthoseprovisionsdonotbindthe
companybyreservingforDraftKingstherighttoamendtheseTermsofUseatanytimeand
withoutnoticeTOUat9.Wieldingthispower,DraftKingscanobliterateanycustomers
rightsat any time, without notice, in two steps: (1) utilize
theamendment clause to removethe arising-prior and survival clauses
so that the consumers rights can no longer be grandfathered Case
1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015
Page 13 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 12 in, then b)
delete any right it wishes from the Terms of Use. Armed with this
option, DraftKings
retainsanunlimitedrighttodecidelaterthenatureorextentofitsperformance,which
destroys the promise and makes it merely illusory. Floss, 211 F.3d
at 316. c)DraftKingsDisclaimstheAccuracyofItsSupposedlyBinding
Terms of Use
CustomersviewDraftKingsTermsofUsebyaccessingitswebsite.Problematically,
DraftKings expressly disclaims all content that appears on the
site: THECOMPANYDOESNOTWARRANTTHATTHEWEBSITE,ANYOF THE WEBSITES
FUNCTIONS OR ANY CONTENT CONTAINED THEREIN
WILLBEUNINTERRUPTEDORERROR-FREE[OR]THATDEFECTS WILL BE CORRECTED
THE COMPANY SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR
THEUSEOFTHEWEBSITEINCLUDING,WITHOUTLIMITATION,THE CONTENT AND ANY
ERRORS CONTAINED THEREIN.
TOUat5-6.Elsewhere,DraftKingsprovidesthatitisnotresponsible
foranyinabilitytoaccesstheWebsite,orwebpagesthatarepartoforrelatedtothe
Website[or] typographicalor other errors. TOU at 3.
TheTermsofUsearepartofthewebsiteandcertainlyqualifyassitecontent.In
disclaiming the accuracy ofany content appearing on the site,
DraftKings necessarily disclaims the accuracy of the Terms of Use,
telling customers it is not to be relied upon.6 By design, then,
DraftKings shields itself from consumers wishing to pursue their
rights thereunder. This creation
ofaself-servingescapehatchdeprivesthecontractofconsideration.SeeHirschiv.Newcastle
Properties,Inc.,2006WL2927493,at*1(D.Colo.2006)(putativearbitrationagreement
deemedunenforceableandillusorywherecompanyshandbookcontainingarbitrationclause
6 This is sound advice, as the Terms of Use is riddled with
verifiably false statements. The documentproclaims, for example,
that[n]o professionalor amateur sports leagueor any team
associatedwith any professionalor amateur sports league is
associated with DraftKings or in anyway affiliated or
associatedwith the Contests.TOU at 9. In fact, DraftKings isto give
merely a partial listthe official fantasy sports website of Major
League Baseball and the National Hockey League and has signed
exclusive deals with the New England Patriots and Denver Broncos.
Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket
06/19/2015 Page 14 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 13
providedthathandbookwasnotacontractandimpose[d]nolegalobligationupon
company);InreZappos.com,893F.Supp.2dat1066(refusingtoenforceagreement[that]
allow[ed]Zappostoholditscustomersanduserstothepromisetoarbitratewhilereservingits
ownescapehatch,leavingthecompanyfreeatanytimetorequireaconsumertoarbitrate
and/or litigate anywhere it sees fit.). d)DraftKings Disclaims its
Promise to be Bound by an Arbitrator DraftKings promises to submit
to an arbitral process whereby its customers can obtain all legal
and equitable relief available in the courts of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. TOU at 8. But it then tells the consumer:
UNDERNOCIRCUMSTANCESSHALLTHECOMPANYBELIABLETO
YOUFORDAMAGESOFANYKIND(INCLUDING,WITHOUT
LIMITATION,FORANYSPECIAL,DIRECT,INDIRECT,INCIDENTAL,
EXEMPLARY,ECONOMIC,PUNITIVE,ORCONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES) THAT
AREDIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY RELATED TO (1) THE
WEBSITE,THECONTENT(2)THEUSEOF,INABILITYTOUSE,OR
PERFORMANCEOFTHEWEBSITE[OR](5)ANYERRORSOR
OMISSIONSINTHEWEBSITESTECHNICALOPERATION,EVENIF
FORESEEABLEOREVENIFTHECOMPANYHASBEENADVISEDOF
THEPOSSIBILITYOFSUCHDAMAGESWHETHERINANACTIONOF
CONTRACT,NEGLIGENCE,STRICTLIABILITY[,OR]TORT[AND]IN
NOEVENTWILLTHECOMPANYENTITIESANDINDIVIDUALSBE
LIABLETOYOUORANYONEELSEFORLOSSORINJURYBY
ACCESSINGTHEWEBSITE,YOUUNDERSTANDTHATYOUMAYBE
WAIVINGRIGHTSWITHRESPECTTOCLAIMSTHATAREATTHIS TIME UNKNOWN OR
UNSUSPECTED. ACCORDINGLY, YOU AGREE TO WAIVE THE BENEFIT OF ANY
LAWTHAT OTHERWISE MIGHT LIMIT YOUR WAIVER OF SUCH CLAIMS.
TOUat6(emphasisadded).Inotherwords,DraftKingssubmitstoarbitration,but
UNDERNOCIRCUMSTANCESSHALLTHECOMPANYBELIABLETOYOUFOR DAMAGES OF ANY
KIND that are awarded in that arbitration. TOUat 6. A promisecould
not be more illusory. See Johnson Enterprises of Jacksonville, Inc.
v. FPL Group, Inc., 162 F.3d Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 15 of 25CASE NO.
15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 14
1290,1311(11thCir.1998)(ifapromise[]appearsonitsfacetobesoinsubstantialasto
impose no obligation at all on the promisorwho says, in effect, I
will if I want tothen that
promiseisillusoryi.e.,apromiseinformbutnotinsubstance.)(internalquotations
omitted). DraftKings promise to submit claims to an arbitrator
possessing the authority to award
damages,TOUat8,isthusnotbackedbyconsiderationbecauseDraftKingsTermsofUse
ensure the company is not liable for satisfying any adverse
judgment.
Insum,becauseDraftKingsisnotactuallyboundbytheTermsofUseorarbitration
clause therein, there is no arbitral agreement for this Court to
enforce. DraftKings motion must therefore be denied without
consideration of whether the putative agreement is unconscionable.
B.THE ARBITRATION PROVISION IS UNENFORCEABLE AS UNCONSCIONABLE
Becausethepartiesneveragreedtoarbitrate,thisCourtsinquiryshouldendhere.
However,assumingthatMr.Aguirreagreedtoarbitrate,theagreementcannotbeenforced
becauseitepitomizesunconscionability.Lyingamidanine-page,nearly6,000-worddocument
consistingofsingle-spaced,size-9font,theadhesive,formarbitrationagreementcobbles
togethernearlyeverydraconiancontractprovisionexistentinAmericanandEnglishlaw,
notwithstandingthatmanyofthesetermscontradictothersinthesamedocument.Itstripsthe
consumerofallreasonable,legalremedieswhileillegallyinsulatingDraftKingsfromall
liability. The provision so shocks the conscience that it cannot be
enforced. 1.TheArbitrationAgreementViolatesFloridaLawbyWaiving
Punitive-Damages Liability for Fraud In Florida, an arbitration
agreement cannot validly waive ones right to punitive damages
forfraud.BeforeBasultov.HialeahAutomotivereachedtheFloridaSupremeCourt,theThird
District Court of Appeal considered this precise issue. 22 So. 3d
586, 590 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009), Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33
Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 16 of 25CASE NO.
15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 15 revd on other grounds, 141 So. 3d
1145 (Fla. 2014). Below, the trial court [had] found that the
[arbitration] [a]greement was substantively unconscionable because
it contained a waiver of right
toseekpunitivedamages.Basulto,22So.3dat590.TheThirdDCAaffirmedthatruling,
noting that, like Mr. Aguirres complaint, the complaint contains a
claim for fraud, and punitive
damagesareavailableinjudicialproceedingswherethereisafraudclaim.Id.Thecourt
agree[d]withthetrialcourtthatitisunconscionabletoemployanarbitrationagreementto
obtain a waiver of rights to which the signatory would otherwise be
entitled under common law
orstatutorylaw.Id.LikethecardealerinBasulto,DraftKingshereprovidedthatthatthe
arbitratorshallnothaveauthoritytoawardpunitivedamages.TOUat8.Hence,likethatin
Basulto, the waiver here is substantively unconscionable as
violative of Florida public policy.
2.TheArbitrationAgreementViolatesFloridaLawbyDenying Consumers
Injunctive ReliefWhile Preserving DraftKings Right to an Injunction
DraftKings arbitration clause reserves for itself the right to all
legal and equitable relief
availableinthecourtsoftheCommonwealthofMassachusetts,TOUat8,including,
necessarily, an injunction. But the corporation tells consumers, IN
THE EVENT YOU INCUR ANY DAMAGES, LOSSES, OR INJURIES THAT ARISE OUT
OF THE COMPANYS ACTS
OROMISSIONS,THEDAMAGES,IFANY,CAUSEDTOYOUARENOTIRREPARABLE
ORSUFFICIENTTOENTITLEYOUTOANINJUNCTIONPREVENTINGANY EXPLOITATION OF
ANY WEBSITE OR OTHER PROPERTY OWNED OR CONTROLLED
BYTHECOMPANYTOUat6(emphasisadded).AsidefromaffordingDraftKingsthe
powertodefraudbroadswathsofFloridianswithimpunity,theclausewouldabrogatethe
injunctivereliefthattheFloridaDeceptiveandUnfairTradePracticesAct(FDUTPA)
explicitly allows. Fla. Stat. 501.211(1). Such is repugnant to
Florida law. See Powertel, Inc. v. Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document
33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 17 of 25CASE NO.
15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 16
Bexley,743So.2d570,576-77(Fla.1stDCA1999)(clauseforcingcustomerstowaive
important statutory remedies, including injunctive or declaratory
relief under FDUTPA, deemed void as violative of public policy);
see also Gessa v. Manor Care of Florida, Inc., 86 So. 3d 484,
493(Fla.2011)(partiescannot,bycontract,directlyunderminespecificstatutoryremedies
created by the Legislature). 3.The Arbitration Agreement Shocks the
Conscience by (1) Reserving for DraftKings theRighttoAll
DamagesAvailableUndertheLawWhile (2) Completely Insulating
DraftKings from All Liability for Any Act
Anunconscionablecontractis[a]nagreementthatnopromisorwithanysense,and
not under a delusion, would make, and that no honest and fair
promisee would accept. Hollins v. Debt Relief of Am., 479 F. Supp.
2d 1099, 1106 (D. Neb. 2007) (citing Black's Law Dictionary,
p.75(8thed.2004)).Toestablishunconscionability,aplaintiffmustdemonstrateboth
proceduralunconscionabilityalackofmeaningfulchoiceaboutwhethertoacceptthe
provisioninquestionandsubstantiveunconscionability,whereinthedisputedprovisions
[are]soone-sidedastobeoppressive.Skirchakv.DynamicsResearchCorp.,Inc.,432
F.Supp.2d 175, 179 (D. Mass. 2006). Here, the issue of procedural
unconscionability can be dispatched with ease. Procedural
unconscionabilitygenerally takes the form of an adhesion contract,
which, imposed and drafted
bythepartyofsuperiorbargainingstrength,relegatestothesubscribingpartyonlythe
opportunitytoadheretothecontractorrejectit.Heflebowerv.JPMorganChaseBank,NA,
2013WL5476806,at*12(E.D.Cal.2013)(citationsomitted).Thearbitrationclausewas
writtenbyDraftKingsand,asindicatedintheexplanationinDefendantsownmotionofhow
DraftKingsusersregister,Mr.Aguirrehadnobargainingpowerandonlytheopportunityto
adhere to the contract or reject it. Id. Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG
Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 18 of 25CASE NO.
15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 17
Substantiveunconscionabilityisnocloserofanissue.Oppressivetermssopervadethe
TermsofUsethattheyoverwhelmeventhestrongpublicpolicyfavoringarbitrationand
mandate denial of Defendants motion. In one part of the agreement,
for example, consumers are told that [i]n no event shall
[DraftKings and its officers] total liability to you for all
damages,
losses,orcausesofactionexceedonehundreddollars($100).TOUat6.Meanwhile,
DraftKingscanrecoverallofitsdamagesstemmingfromadispute.TOUat8(affording
arbitratorpowertoawardalllegalandequitablereliefavailableinthecourtsofthe
CommonwealthofMassachusetts.).ThisprovisionviolatesBasultov.HialeahAutomotive.
Therein,theThirdDCAconsideredaclausethatlimitedconsumers,butnotthecardealers,
recovery to $5,000. 22 So.3d 586, 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).
Interpreting the clause in light of the
FAA,theThirdDCAfoundnotonlythattheone-sidednatureoftheclauserenderedit
substantivelyunconscionable,butthatitcouldnotbeseveredfromtheremainderofthe
agreement, thereby defeating arbitration altogether. Basulto, 22
So.3d at 191.
Becausethe$100capistermedinabsolutes[i]nnoeventshall[DraftKings]total
liabilityexceed$100that sum must be interpreted to include all
attorneys fees and costs. So, the most Mr. Aguirre could ever
recoup is $100total. Laughably, that is $100 less than the
mandatory $200 consumer filing fee under the AAA Rules that
purportedly govern.See Motion to Compel Arbitration, Attachment 1,
at p. 34. Incredibly, because of the liability cap imposed by
DraftKings,consumerssuchasMr.Aguirrecouldneverdobetterinarbitrationthannettinga
$100 losseven if they are 100-percent victorious in the eyes of the
arbiter. 7 7 The Terms of Use do provide that customers canlitigate
in small-claims court in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, TOU at 8,
but this is of no practical value to Florida consumers. Assuming
the small-claims court would award costs and fees, the total of any
judgment, including costs and fees,still could, per the Terms of
Use, not exceed $100 (or $0,see infra). To evenstepfoot in
aBostonsmall-claimscourt,Mr.Aguirrewouldhaveto purchasea round-trip
flight from Miami to Boston and a hotel room, which would probably
exceed $500 total. If he won, Mr. Aguirre Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG
Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 19 of 25CASE NO.
15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 18 While the $100 cap is plainly
unconscionable, it gets worse. The Terms of Use elsewhere
statesthatbyenteringintoaContestoracceptinganyprize,entrantsagreetoindemnify,
releaseandtoholdharmlessDraftKingsfromanyandallliability,claims,oractionsofany
kind whatsoever, including but not limited to injuries, damages, or
losses to persons and property
whichmaybesustainedinconnectionwithparticipation.TOUat2(emphasisadded).Its
customers are further warned:
UNDERNOCIRCUMSTANCESSHALLTHECOMPANYBELIABLETO
YOUFORDAMAGESOFANYKIND(INCLUDING,WITHOUT
LIMITATION,FORANYSPECIAL,DIRECT,INDIRECT,INCIDENTAL,
EXEMPLARY,ECONOMIC,PUNITIVE,ORCONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES) THAT
AREDIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY RELATED TO (1) THE
WEBSITE,THECONTENT(2)THEUSEOF,INABILITYTOUSE,OR
PERFORMANCEOFTHEWEBSITE[OR](5)ANYERRORSOR
OMISSIONSINTHEWEBSITESTECHNICALOPERATION,EVENIF
FORESEEABLEOREVENIFTHECOMPANYHASBEENADVISEDOF
THEPOSSIBILITYOFSUCHDAMAGESWHETHERINANACTIONOF
CONTRACT,NEGLIGENCE,STRICTLIABILITY[,OR]TORT[AND]IN
NOEVENTWILLTHECOMPANYBELIABLETOYOUORANYONE
ELSEFORLOSSORINJURY.BYACCESSINGTHEWEBSITE,YOU
UNDERSTANDTHATYOUMAYBEWAIVINGRIGHTSWITHRESPECT
TOCLAIMSTHATAREATTHISTIMEUNKNOWNORUNSUSPECTED.
ACCORDINGLY,YOUAGREETOWAIVETHEBENEFITOFANY
LAWTHATOTHERWISEMIGHTLIMITYOURWAIVEROFSUCH CLAIMS.
TOUat6.Thisprovisionisnothingshortofabsurd.Underthecompanysdispute
resolutionregime,theconsumercanbeheldliableforanyandalldamagesrecognizedunder
Massachusetts law. TOU at 8. Meanwhile, by seeking harbor of the
provision above, DraftKings remains free to harm consumers without
consequence. More than perhaps any other clause, this
wouldbeawardedhis$25back,pluscostsandfees.However,because[i]nnoeventshall[DraftKingsandits
officers]totalliabilityto[theconsumer]foralldamages,losses,orcausesofactionexceedonehundreddollars
($100),thecostsandfeeswouldbecappedat$75,makingthetotalrecovery$100.EvenassumingMr.Aguirre
proceededproseandhadnoattorneysfees,hewould,bywinning,actuallylose$400.Accordingly,itmakesno
economic sense for him to attempt to recoup the $25 out of which
DraftKings defrauded him in small-claims court. This is exactly
what the corporation wants, and exactly why its scheme is
unconscionable. Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD
Docket 06/19/2015 Page 20 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff
19 all-encompassing liability waiver impales DraftKings claim that
it forged a fair and
enforceabledealwithMr.Aguirretoarbitratealldisputes.Theallegedagreementisonethatnopromisor
withanysense,andnotunderadelusion,wouldmake,andthatnohonestandfairpromisee
would accept. It shocks the conscience and cannot be enforced by an
American court. 4.Offending Terms Cannot be Severed
Ifillegalitypervadesthearbitrationagreementsuchthatonlyadisintegratedfragment
would remain after hacking away the unenforceable parts, the
judicial effort begins to look more like rewriting the contract
than fulfilling the intent of the parties. Booker v. Robert Half
Intern., Inc., 413 F.3d 77, 84-85 (D.C. Cir. 2005). The more a
party overreaches, the less likely a court will be able to sever
the provisions and enforce the clause. Id. at 85. Given the
infirmities in the
arbitrationagreement,whichpermeatenearlyeveryoneofthenineTermsofUsepages,
severance would essentially place this Court in the position of
re-drafting from scratch. Among other fatal shortcomings, the
arbitration agreement: (1) is devoid of consideration
fromDraftKings,whichexpresslyprovidesitisnotbound,TOUat3,6,9;(2)hopelessly
conflictswithalitigationclauseinthesamecontract,TOUat8;(3)precludesMr.Aguirre
from filing suit in a court of general jurisdiction, while
explicitly affording DraftKings that right,
TOUat2,3;(4)preservesDraftKingsrighttoobtaininjunctiverelief,whileusurping
Plaintiffs, TOU at 6, 8; (5) waives consumers right to punitive
damages in violation of Florida law, TOU at 8; and (6) limits Mr.
Aguirres recovery to, depending on the clause, either $100 or $0,
while allowing DraftKings to recoverad infinitum, TOU at 2, 6.
These provisions go to the
heartofthecontractand,ifremoved,wouldrenderthedocumentanemptyshell.Theentire
arbitration agreement should be declared void and defendants motion
denied. Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket
06/19/2015 Page 21 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 20
III.Conclusion
Asdemonstratedabove,thepartiesneveragreedtotheTermsofUse,andthusnever
agreed to arbitrate. The Courts inquiry can end there. However,
assuming the parties did agree,
thatagreementcannotbeenforcedbecauseitisunconscionable.Accordingly,Plaintiff
respectfullyrequeststhatthiscourtdenyDefendantsattempttocompelarbitration,deny
Defendantsattempttodismissthisclassaction,anddenyDefendantsattempttoobtain
attorneys fees from Mr. Aguirre. IV.Unopposed Request for Hearing
Plaintiff,pursuanttoLocalRule7.1(b),respectfullyrequeststhatthisCourtholda
hearing on DraftKings motion. Plaintiff submits that entertaining
oral argument would help the court obtain clarity on any issue
that, due to page limits and the complexity of the issues, could
not be exhaustively briefed. Plaintiff anticipates that a 30-minute
hearing would suffice. Plaintiff has, pursuant to Local Rule
7.1(a)(3), conferred with Defendant and confirmed that Defendant is
not opposed to a hearing on this matter. Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG
Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 22 of 25CASE NO.
15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 21 Respectfully submitted, MASE LARA,
P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiff 2601 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 800
Miami, Florida33133 Telephone:(305) 377-3770 Facsimile: (305)
377-0080 By: /s/ Mason KernsRICHARD D. LARA Florida Bar No.: 987492
[email protected] G. LYONS Florida Bar No.: 985457
[email protected] KERNS Florida Bar No.: 91754
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015
Page 23 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 22 CERTIFICATE OF
SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 19, 2015, I served the
foregoing document with the Clerk to the Court using CM/ECF. I also
certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on
allcounselofrecordidentifiedontheattachedServiceListviatransmissionofNoticesof
Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. /s/ Mason Kerns MASON
KERNSCase 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket
06/19/2015 Page 24 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 23
SERVICE LIST JORGE A. MESTRE, ESQUIRE KADIAN BLANSON, ESQUIRE
CHARLIE WHARTON, ESQUIRE RIVERO MESTRE, LLP Attorneys for
DraftKings, Inc. 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1000 Miami,
Florida 33134 Telephone: (305) 445-2500 Fax: (305) 445-2505
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]@riveromestre.com TIMOTHY
W. LOOSE, ESQUIRE JAMES P. FOGELMAN, ESQUIRE AUSTIN SCHWING,
ESQUIRE GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP Of Counsel for DraftKings,
Inc. 333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 5400 Los Angeles, California,
90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Fax: (213) 229-6234
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] 18776//42v3 Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document
33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 25 of 25