Wilson v. Playtika, Ltd et al

Filing 113

ORDER denying 99 Defendant Playtika's Motion to Certify; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 113 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 3

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9

SEAN WILSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

10

Plaintiff,
v.

11
12
13
14

PLAYTIKA LTD an Israeli limited
company, PLAYTIKA HOLDING
CORP., a Delaware corporation, and
CAESARS INTERACTIVE
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company,

15

CASE NO. 3:18-cv-05277-RBL
ORDER ON DEFENDANT
PLAYTIKA, LTD.’S MOTION TO
CERTIFY ISSUES TO THE
WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT
DKT. # 99

Defendant.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Playtika, Ltd.’s Motion to Certify
Issues to the Washington Supreme Court. Playtika’s Motion is nearly identical to the Motion
brought by High 5, another casino game app-producing company, in Wilson v. PTT, LLC, No.
3:18-CV-05275-RBL, 2020 WL 1674151 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 6, 2020). The Court denied that
Motion because High 5 had already raised the issues it wanted certified to the Supreme Court in
its motion to dismiss. Id. This earlier decision serves as a guide for deciding Playtika’s Motion.
Although federal courts may decide state law issues of first impression, they also have
discretion to certify such issues to the state’s highest court. Murray v. BEJ Minerals, LLC, 924

ORDER - 1

Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 113 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 3

1

F.3d 1070, 1071 (9th Cir. 2019). Washington law allows certification of question to the

2

Washington Supreme Court when “the local law has not been clearly determined.” RCW

3

§ 2.60.020; accord, RAP 16.16(a). But the Ninth Circuit has made clear that the certification

4

process is not to be “lightly” invoked. Murray, 924 F.3d at 1072 (quoting Kremen v. Cohen, 325

5

F.3d 1035, 1037 (9th Cir. 2003)). It requires “careful consideration” of the following factors:

6

“(1) whether the question presents ‘important public policy ramifications’ yet unresolved by the

7

state court; (2) whether the issue is new, substantial, and of broad application; (3) the state

8

court’s caseload; and (4) ‘the spirit of comity and federalism.’” Id. at 1072 (quoting Kremen, 325

9

F.3d at 1037-38).

10

“There is a presumption against certifying a question to a state supreme court after the

11

federal district court has issued a decision.” Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1065 (9th Cir.

12

2008). Courts in this circuit and elsewhere have recognized that allowing parties to exploit

13

certification as a de facto reconsideration or appeal would turn the district court’s decision into

14

“nothing but a gamble.” Id. (quoting Perkins v. Clark Equip. Co., Melrose Div., 823 F.2d 207,

15

209–10 (8th Cir.1987)); see also Enfield v. A.B. Chance Co., 228 F.3d 1245, 1255 (10th Cir.

16

2000); Cantwell v. Univ. of Mass., 551 F.2d 879, 880 (1st Cir. 1977). In short, “[a] party should

17

not be allowed a second chance at victory through certification.” Hinojos v. Kohl’s Corp., 718

18

F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Thompson, 547 F.3d at 1065 (internal quotation

19

omitted)).

20

Like High 5, Playtika seeks to certify the following question to the Supreme Court: “does

21

playing an online video game that is free to play, allows in-app purchases, but awards no prize

22

other than additional playing time constitute illegal gambling under Washington law?” Dkt. # 99

23

at 2. Playtika further breaks the question down into the following sub-parts: “(1) Are virtual

24

ORDER - 2

Case 3:18-cv-05277-RBL Document 113 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 3

1

coins ‘things of value,’ when players can play the game without paying for any coins, additional

2

coins can be obtained without payment, and when the coins cannot be converted to cash,

3

redeemed for prizes, or transferred to other users? (2) Does an in-app purchase of virtual coins

4

constitute a ‘bona fide business transaction,’ a transaction expressly excluded from Washington’s

5

definition of gambling? (3) Is playing an online, casino-themed video game the type of ‘illegal’

6

activity RCW § 4.24.070 was designed to address, when the game offers no prize?” Id. at 2-3.

7

However, also like High 5, Playtika filed a Motion to Dismiss in which it raised nearly

8

these exact same issues before this Court. See Dkt. # 40. Playtika sought to have Wilson’s claims

9

dismissed on the basis that its app-based games do not constitute “illegal gambling” because

10

players do not gamble for a “thing of value,” id. at 16, because the apps fall within the statute’s

11

“bona fide business transaction” exception, id. at 21, and because players do not “win” or “lose”

12

anything, id. at 20-21, 22. For the same reasons as in PTT, 2020 WL 1674151, at *2, Playtika’s

13

arguments that the Washington Supreme Court should decide this issue of Washington law do

14

not overcome the presumption created by the decision to litigate in federal court. The Court

15

DENIES Playtika’s Motion.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated this 15th day of May, 2020.

19
20

A

21

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

22

23
24

ORDER - 3