| Virual Land Dispute Class ActionEvans, Spencer & Carter v. Linden Labs (Second Life) | ||
|
|
||
|
PleadingsApril 15, 2010 Complaint filed by Evans, Spencer & Carter on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. Linden Research, Inc. and Philip Rosedale June 1, 2010 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by CARL EVANS. LINDEN RESEARCH, INC. waiver sent on 5/6/2010, answer due 7/6/2010. (ARCHINACO, JASON) (Entered: 06/15/2010) June 15, 2010 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by CARL EVANS. PHILIP ROSEDALE waiver sent on 5/6/2010, answer due 7/6/2010. (ARCHINACO, JASON) (Entered: 06/15/2010) June 16, 2010 PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against LINDEN RESEARCH, INC., PHILIP ROSEDALE, filed by CARL EVANS, DONALD SPENCER, CINDY CARTER, VALERIE SPENCER. (Attachments: # 1 EXHIBIT 1, # 2 EXHIBIT 3)(EXHIBIT 2 ATTACHED ON HARD COPY, OVER 3.5 mb)(sg, ) (Entered: 06/16/2010) 07/07/2010i July 7, 2010 NOTICE of Appearance by MATTHEW D. JANSSEN on behalf of LINDEN RESEARCH, INC., PHILIP ROSEDALE with Certificate of Service(JANSSEN, MATTHEW) (Entered: 07/07/2010) July 7, 2010 Disclosure Statement Form pursuant to FRCP 7.1 with Certificate of Service by LINDEN RESEARCH, INC..(JANSSEN, MATTHEW) (Entered: 07/07/2010) July 7, 2010 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Michael H. Page, Esq. filed by LINDEN RESEARCH, INC., PHILIP ROSEDALE.Certificate of Service.(JANSSEN, MATTHEW) (Entered: 07/07/2010)July 7, 2010 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Admission Of Johanna Calabria, Esq. filed by LINDEN RESEARCH, INC., PHILIP ROSEDALE.Certificate of Service.(JANSSEN, MATTHEW) (Entered: 07/07/2010) July 9, 2010 ORDER THAT MICHAEL H. PAGE AND JOHANNA CALABRIA ARE ADMITTED IN THIS CASE AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE FOR DEFENDANTS LINDEN RESEARCH, INC. AND PHILIP ROSEDALE.ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 7/8/2010. 7/9/2010 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 07/09/2010) July 9, 2010 Defendants file a Motion to Dismiss July 30, 2010 RESPONSE in Opposition re 11 MOTION to Dismiss and Paintiffs' Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery filed by CARL EVANS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Part 1 of 2,(First Amended Complaint) # 2 Exhibit 1 Part 2 of 2, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Text of Proposed Order (ARCHINACO, JASON) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
August 6, 2010 Plaintiffs file Opposition and Motion for Leave to file Amended Complaint to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss August 6, 2010 (see link above) MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by CARL EVANS.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(ARCHINACO, JASON) (Entered: 08/06/2010) 08/16/2010 Filing fee: $ 80.00, receipt number 028044, for PRO HAC VICE APPLICATIONS OF MICHAEL H. PAGE AND JOHANNA CALABRIA. (sg, ) (Entered: 08/17/2010) August 27, 2010 NOTICE of Hearing: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE SET FOR 9/9/2010 10:00 AM, IN COURTROOM 11A, BEFORE HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO.(to, ) (Entered: 08/27/2010) August 30, 2010 ORDER THAT A MOTION HEARING SET FOR 9/9/2010 10:00 AM IN COURTROOM 11A BEFORE HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 8/27/2010. 8/30/2010 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 08/30/2010) September 9, 2010 MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Defendants Linden Research, Inc. and Philip Rosedale's Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative to Transfer filed by LINDEN RESEARCH, INC., PHILIP ROSEDALE.Memorandum of Law in Support, Certificate of Service.(SHIEKMAN, LAURENCE) (Entered: 09/02/2010) September 9, 2010 Report Of the Parties Pursuant to Rule 26(f) by CARL EVANS. (ARCHINACO, JASON) (Entered: 09/07/2010) September 8, 2010 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Robert A. Bracken, Esq. filed by CARL EVANS.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 1)(ARCHINACO, JASON) (Entered: 09/08/2010) September 9, 2010 ORDER granting 18 MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE AND ROBERT A. BRACKEN IS ADMITTED IN THIS CASE PRO HAC VICE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 9/8/2010.9/9/2010 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 09/09/2010) September 9, 2010 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO: Motion Hearing held on 9/9/2010 re 11 MOTION to Dismiss filed by PHILIP ROSEDALE, LINDEN RESEARCH, INC. Court Reporter: JOSEPH MATKOWSKI. (sg, ) (Entered: 09/09/2010) September 10, 2010 ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS SUBMIT TO THE COURT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING BY FRIDAY 10/1/2010 AND PLAINTIFF SHALL RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING BY MONDSAY 10/11/2010. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 9/9/2010. 9/10/2010 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 09/10/2010) 09/23/2010 Filing fee: $ 40.00, receipt number 30024 RECIEVED FOR PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION FOR ROBERT A. BRACKEN. (sg, ) (Entered: 09/23/2010) September 23, 2010 TRANSCRIPT of hearing held on 9/9/2010, before Judge EDUARDO C. ROBRENO. Court Reporter/Transcriber JOSEPH MATKOWSKI. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 10/12/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/21/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/20/2010. (sg, ) (Entered: 09/23/2010) 09/23/2010 23 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript with Certificate of Service re 22 Transcript - PDF, 9/23/2010 Entered and Copies Emailed and Mailed. (sg, ) (Entered: 09/23/2010)
September 30, 2010 RESPONSE in Support re 11 MOTION to Dismiss / Supplemental Brief In Support Of Motion To Dismiss filed by LINDEN RESEARCH, INC., PHILIP ROSEDALE. ( Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Declaration of John Rountree)(JANSSEN, MATTHEW) (Entered: 09/30/2010) 10/11/2010 Memorandum in Opposition re 11 MOTION to Dismiss filed by CARL EVANS. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4-1, # 6 Exhibit 4-2, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7)(ARCHINACO, JASON) (Entered: 10/11/2010) |
|
Welcome to VirtualLandDispute.comOn April 14, 2010, Evans, Carter and Spencer initiated this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. The Complaint alleges that the Linden Labs and Philip Rosedale, it's founder, lured consumers across the United States to invest real money into Defendants' game world by promising those users that they would own the virtual land property they purchased and the content they created, and then unilaterally without Defendants' users consent, knowledge, or permission, changed the terms of their service agreement to state that these consumers did not own what they had created, bought and paid for, and that these consumers had no choice but to click they agreed or they could not have accessed their property. The Complaint further alleges that Defendants froze and deleted or converted all the U.S. Dollars, virtual land, and property that Plaintiffs had entrusted to Defendants without offering any explanation or recourse for recovery. The Complaint frequently refers to the case of Bragg v. Linden Labs, a reported decision with Mr. Archinaco as lead counsel and which first raised the issue of the validity of arbitration provisions in virtual world terms of service agreements and began to touch on the rights of consumers to their virtual land and property. More information on Bragg v. Linden, including the pleadings, orders, and links national commentary is availble by clicking here: Bragg v Linden The Complaint The Complaint is divided into the following sections: The Parties, Procedural Background, Jurisdiciton, General Allegations, - Background, Virtual Worlds - Generally, Virtual Item and Property Ownership - Generally, Second Life's Place in the Crowded MMORPG Market and False Representations of Ownership of Virtual Land and Items, Virtual Property in Second Life, Virtual Property in Second Life - Property Ownership, Plaintiffs are Induced into 'Participating' in the Second Life World, 'The Liquidity Event' - i.e., One of the Likely Motives, "The Currency Exchange", Second Life's Attempted Fine Print, AKA The Terms of Service Agreement ("TOS"), Class Action Allegations, Count I - Violation of the California Consumer Remedies Act v. All Defendants (on behalf of the main class), Count II - Violations of the False Advertising Law v. All Defendants (on behalf of the main class), Count III - Violation of the California Auction Law v. All Defendants (on behalf of the main class), Count IV - Violation of the California Unfair Completition law v. All Defendants (on behalf of the main class), Count V - Fraud and/or Fraud in the Inducement v. All Defendants (on behalf of the main class), Count VII - Conversion v. Defendant Linden (on behalf of subclass A members), Count VIII - Unjust Enrichment v. All Defendants (on behalf of subclass A members. Plaintifff's claims against Defendants and Count IX - Wrongful Expulsion v. Defendant Linden (on behalf of subclass A members).
The Defendants' Motion to DismissDefendant's Motion to Dismiss may be downloaded from the above link under "Pleadings". Subsequent to the filing of the Motion to Dismiss, Judge Robreno held a hearing on themotion and in response to the parties' argument, ordered Defendants' to provide additional information regarding each of the parties' accounts; in particular, to identify what periods of time each plaintiff had been subject to what versions of the variousTerms of Service agreements. In response, Defendants and Plaintiffs have filed supplemental briefing. Essentially, defendants claim that the venue provisions require the case to continue in California and not in Pennsylvania. This website will track the progress of the case as it develops and providing updated information to class members and others interested in the outcome. If you believe you may be a class member, or similarly situated as the Plaintiffs, or want to find out if you may be, please complete the simple 21 question form by following this link: |