Pilati v. Yellow Social Interactive Ltd

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court GRANTS the Motion to remand and this case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Alabama. Signed by Judge Liles C Burke on 1/7/2025. (AHI)

FILED
2025 Jan-07 PM 01:55
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHWESTERN DIVISION
ANGEL DEANN PILATI

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
YELLOW SOCIAL
INTERACTIVE, LTD.,
Defendant.

Case No.: 3:23-cv-1349-LCB

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Angel Deann Pilati sued Yellow Social Interactive, Ltd. in the Circuit Court
of Franklin County, Alabama. After Yellow Social removed the case to this Court,
Pilati filed a motion to remand. (Doc. 9). Having considered all the filings as well
as the argument of counsel at a hearing on the matter, the Court finds that the case
is due to be remanded.
I. Background
This case and four others currently pending before this Court raise the same
allegations against various defendants. 1 Each case is nearly identical to a set of nine
0F

cases filed in early 2023. Five of those cases were assigned to the undersigned, see

1

In addition to the present case, the other four cases are Seal v. VGW LTD, et al. 3:23-cv-1295LCB; Mills v. Playtika, Ltd., et al., 3:23-cv-1289-LCB; Pilati v. Playstudios US LLC, 3:23-cv1335-LCB; and Rice v. Aristocrat Leisure, Ltd., et al., 3:23-cv-1334-LCB.

Gann v. Huuuge, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00498-LCB, 2023 WL 5202376 (N.D. Ala. Aug.
14, 2023); McGee v. SpinX Games, Ltd., No. 3:23-cv-00777-LCB, 2023 WL
5202377 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 14, 2023); Mills v. Zynga, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00463-LCB,
2023 WL 5198511 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 11, 2023); Pilati v. Yellow Soc. Interactive, Ltd.,
686 F. Supp. 3d 1248, 1249–50 (N.D. Ala. 2023); Rice v. Aristocrat Leisure, Ltd.,
No. 3:23-cv-00480-LCB, 2023 WL 5198510 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 11, 2023), and four
were assigned to Judge Lynwood C. Smith. See Sornberger v. Sciplay Corp., 3:23cv-00476-CLS (N.D. Ala.); Seal v. VGW Ltd., 3:23-cv-00462-CLS (N.D. Ala.);
Pilati v. Playstudios US LLC, 3:23-cv-00488-CLS (N.D. Ala.); and Mills v. Playtika
Ltd., 3:23-cv-00464-CLS (N.D. Ala.). The Court will refer to these collectively as
the “Original Cases.”
As they did in the Original Cases, the individual plaintiffs have sued various
defendants, all providers of online casino-themed games 2, under Ala. Code § 8-11F

150(b) (1975). That statute allows, among other things, “any person” to file a lawsuit
to recover money lost on illegal gambling wagers “for the use of” the losing player’s
wife, children, or next of kin. Four plaintiffs, Gayla Mills, Amy Nicole Seal, Angel
Deann Pilati, and Sera Stancil Rice have sued several defendants in two state courts
under this statute to recover money allegedly lost by all Alabama residents who have

2

While not relevant for purposes of the motions to remand, the parties dispute whether the
games offered by the defendants qualify as illegal gambling under Alabama law.
2

played the defendants’ games for the use of those players’ wives, children, or next
of kin. The defendants in each case removed the action to this Court asserting
jurisdiction under various provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The plaintiffs have all
filed motions to remand.
After the Original Cases were removed to this Court, the undersigned
remanded to state court each of the cases assigned to him while the plaintiffs in the
cases assigned to Judge Smith voluntarily dismissed their complaints a few days
later. The procedural events following the remands and voluntary dismissals are a
bit different for each case but fall into two categories relevant here. The plaintiffs
in the voluntarily dismissed cases assigned to Judge Smith, i.e., Seal v. VGW Ltd.,
3:23-cv-00462-CLS (N.D. Ala.); Pilati v. Playstudios US LLC, 3:23-cv-00488-CLS
(N.D. Ala.); Mills v. Playtika Ltd., 3:23-cv-00464-CLS (N.D. Ala.), refiled new
cases in state court in August of 2023. The plaintiffs in the remanded cases filed
amended complaints.
Pilati was one of the plaintiffs who filed an amended complaint after this
Court granted her motion to remand when deciding the Original Cases. The only
relevant difference is that in her amended complaint, she specifically excluded from
recovery any Alabamian who lost more than $75,000. Accordingly, the factual

3

allegations and legal theories are essentially the same. As discussed in one of the
Original Cases 3, Pilati v. Yellow Soc. Interactive, Ltd:
2F

Gambling has long been illegal in the state of Alabama. “A person
engages in gambling if he stakes or risks something of value upon the
outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under
his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he or
someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain
outcome.” Ala. Code § 13A-12-20(4) (1975). In 1852, the Alabama
legislature codified a civil cause of action to recover money paid and
lost in gambling endeavors. Id. § 8-1-150. The statute reads, in relevant
part, as follows:
(a) All contracts founded in whole or in part on a
gambling consideration are void. A person who has
paid money or delivered anything of value lost upon
any game or wager may recover such money thing, or
its value by an action commenced within six months
from the time of such payment or delivery.
(b) Any person may also recover the amount of such
money, thing, or its value by an action commenced within
12 months after the payment or delivery thereof for the use
of the wife or, if no wife, the children or, if no children,
the next of kin of the loser.
Id. § 8-1-150(a)–(b).
Yellow Social, a Gibraltar corporation with its principal place of
business in Gibraltar, is in the computer game industry. Specifically,
the company develops and markets games that can be played online or
via cellphone applications. Several of Yellow Social's products are
games of chance, such as those involving virtual slot machines and/or
casino themes. In those games, a player initially receives free virtual
coins to spend in order to play the game. For example, for Yellow
Social's slot-machine games, a player uses coins to “spin” the reel. If
the player loses the spin, the coins he wagered are lost. If the player
3

The Memorandum Opinions issued in each of the Original Cases were substantially similar.
4

wins, he receives more coins. If the player runs out of coins entirely,
then he can either stop playing the game or purchase additional coins.
In other words, he can buy more playing time.
Many Alabama citizens play Yellow Social's games of chance
and have purchased additional playing time. On March 8, 2023, Angel
Pilati, an Alabama citizen, filed this action against Yellow Social in the
Circuit Court of Franklin County, Alabama, pursuant to Alabama Code
§ 8-1-150(b), seeking to recover the money lost by Alabama citizens on
Yellow Social's games of chance between March 2022 and March
2023. Shortly thereafter, Yellow Social removed the action to this
Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446. (Doc. 1 at 1.) Yellow
Social relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as the grounds for removal, claiming
that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the statute's
diversity of citizenship provision.
Pilati v. Yellow Soc. Interactive, Ltd., 686 F. Supp. 3d 1248, 1250 (N.D. Ala. 2023)
(internal citations omitted).
In the present case, Yellow Social has again argued that this Court has
traditional diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. However, Yellow Social
has also argued that this Court has jurisdiction over the case pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), specifically 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2) and 1453(b).
In responding to the motions to remand in each of the cases now pending, the
defendants filed a consolidated response stating:
Because of the strong similarities between this action and four other
actions pending before the Court, the overlap between Plaintiffs’
arguments in each case, and the shared bases on which this Court has
jurisdiction over these matters, Defendants in all five actions are all
filing the same opposition brief to promote efficient resolution of these
issues.
(Doc. 18). The Court agrees that the cases all share nearly identical legal issues.
5

However, there is a relevant difference between the cases that were dismissed
and refiled and the remanded cases in which the plaintiffs filed amended complaints.
Pilati’s case falls into the latter category. In addition to arguing that the case is due
to be remanded because the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction—under CAFA or
otherwise—Pilati also argues that remand is appropriate for an additional reason.
According to Pilati, the present motion to remand is essentially a motion to
reconsider the prior remand order.

Because 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) prohibits

reconsideration of a prior remand order, the case is due to be remanded on that basis.
II. Motion to Remand
As noted above, Pilati is among the plaintiffs who filed an amended complaint
after her original case was remanded. Thus, in addition to arguing that her case is
not removable for jurisdictional reasons, she claims that the present notice of
removal is nothing more than an impermissible request that the Court reconsider its
prior remand order in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), which provides that “[a]n
order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not
reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” Yellow Social counters that removal is proper
because, it says, the amended complaint constitutes a new pleading “from which it
may be first ascertained that the case is one which … has become removable.” 28
U.S.C § 1446(b)(3).

6

The defendants acknowledge that § 1447(d) prohibits a district court from
reconsidering a ruling on a motion to remand. However, they contend that by
amending her complaint to exclude recovery by any Alabamian who lost more than
$75,000, Pilati has altered the jurisdictional facts rendering the case removable, i.e.,
her amendment is a now new pleading from which it “may first be ascertained that
the case is removable.”
In support of that argument, the defendants urge the Court to rely on its
“judicial experience and common sense” when evaluating the amount in
controversy. See Merriweather v. Digsby, 2021 WL 2935936, at *2 (N.D. Ala. July
13, 2021) (“A court ‘need not suspend reality or shelve common sense’ when
evaluating the amount in controversy.” (quoting Roe v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 613
F.3d 1058, 1062 (11th Cir. 2010))); Roe, 613 F.3d at 1062 (“[C]ourts may use their
judicial experience and common sense in determining whether the case . . . meets
federal jurisdictional requirements.”). They point out that by excluding from her
complaint any player who lost more than $75,000, Pilati is excluding from potential
relief that portion of the public who was the most injured. According to the
defendants, this is contrary to Pilati’s assertion that she seeks to enforce a public
interest. They also opine about how Pilati’s attorneys are to be compensated and
argue that, since Pilati is the only client, any attorneys’ fees can come only from her.
Therefore, the reasoning goes, any amount that is paid to counsel is necessarily part
7

of Pilati’s award and counts toward the amount in controversy. Since Pilati is
seeking recovery of money lost by all players in Alabama, an amount that is
indisputably greater than $75,000, the amount in controversy would be satisfied.
However, the Court is not persuaded that the exclusion of the poor souls who
lost more than $75,000 alters the jurisdictional facts. The defendants cite no caselaw
in support of their argument and simply state, ipse dixit, that “the new exclusion of
the very families Plaintiffs portray as most harmed in these cases belies the idea that
these cases are brought as a ‘public service’ where Plaintiffs and counsel seek no
benefit or compensation. This directly affects the ‘jurisdictional fact’ question
whether a non-aggregated award to Plaintiff is sought.” (Doc. 18 at 25). The Court
does not see how the exclusion of the players who lost more than $75,000 changes
the calculus. The defendants have cited no authority for the proposition that a
plaintiff’s altruistic motives—or lack thereof—in filing a complaint have any
bearing on the Court’s jurisdiction or whether individual claims can be aggregated.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the core jurisdictional facts have not changed, and
the case is due to be remanded to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(d).
Moreover, even if Yellow Social had properly removed the case, the motion
to remand would be due to be granted for the reasons stated in the memorandum
opinion issued contemporaneously in Mills v. Playtika, Ltd., et al., 3:23-cv-1289LCB.
8

III.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Pilati’s motion to remand (Doc. 9) is GRANTED,
and this case is hereby remanded to the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Alabama.
DONE and ORDERED January 7, 2025.

_________________________________
LILES C. BURKE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9