Plaintiff in Pro Per
|SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES |
|[ENTER NAME], Plaintiff v.ESL GAMING ONLINE, INC., Defendant||Case No.:|
Plaintiff, [ENTER NAME], pro se, alleges the following on information and belief:
1. This case involves a ban that was imposed on Plaintiff on Defendant’s competitive gaming platform. Plaintiff provided evidence that it could not have been him who was banned, but Defendant kept saying that they have reasonable doubt that Plaintiff received a reasonable ban. At the moment Defendant’s platform is Plaintiff’s only sources of income due to covid. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks this honorable court to address the issue.
2. Plaintiff [ENTER NAME] is a California resident of [ENTER ADDRESS]. Until the time of this suit, Plaintiff owned/owns an account on Defendant’s platform.
3. Defendant ESL GAMING ONLINE, INC, is an esports organizer and production company that produces video game competitions worldwide. Defendant’s address for the purpose of this suit is 1212 Chestnut Street Burbank, CA 91506-1627.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants pursuant to California Constitution, Article VI, section 10, and California Code of Civil Procedure section 410.10 in that each Defendant does substantial business in California; all of the Defendants have purposely availed themselves of the benefits of doing business in this state; and Defendants’ violations of law alleged herein occurred, in whole or in part, in this state.
4. The claims herein alleged in this Complaint occurred in Los Angeles City and County and throughout the State of California. Venue for this matter properly lies within Los Angeles County because the claims herein alleged in this Complaint occurred, in whole or in part, in Los Angeles County.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
5. Defendant offers ESEA, a platform for gamers who want a more competitive feel to gaming. Defendant’s platform is accessed from https://play.esea.net/
6. Defendant issues different types of bans on its platform, as punishment for errant gamers. https://play.esea.net/content/ban-types
7. The events that lead up to the instant action began back in 2020, when Plaintiff used a boosting service that is not allowed. Boosting is when a gamer gets someone else to play on their account and they rank the gamer up. Plaintiff made the mistake once and never did it again. The booster got banned and this caused Plaintiff’s account to get banned because of the hardware ID ban. A hardware ID ban means that if a gamer’s account has any history of logging into a specific computer, and the gamer gets banned on that computer, any other gamer’s account that was ever logged into it will get banned.
8. Defendant then banned Plaintiff for ban evasion and Plaintiff has been trying to clear it up ever since. The link for the account that was banned is https://play.esea.net/users/2304460
9. Defendant refused to lift Plaintiff’s ban and said that they have more than reasonable doubt that Plaintiff was the one who was previously banned. Defendant’s allegation is impossible since Plaintiff has never been banned on Defendant’s platform before.
10. Plaintiff avers that if it was his computer that was banned, Plaintiff’s alternate account would have also been banned. Plaintiff’s alternate account was never boosted hence it was never logged into another device, only his. The link for Plaintiff’s alternate account is https://play.esea.net/users/2341986. As it can be seen, the said account was not banned because of the fact that it was never boosted.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTISES
(In violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200)
11. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 1 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference. 12. “An ‘unfair’ business practice occurs when that practice ‘offends an established public policy or when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers.’” (Davis v. Ford Motor Credit Co. LLC, (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 581, 595).
13. In the instant action, Defendant’s actions and/or inactions meet the threshold for unfair business practice. Defendant insists that Plaintiff’s account was rightly banned. This allegation is far from the truth. If Defendant checks the IP and information of the original account that was banned, it will be in a completely different region since the account was boosted in a different country when Plaintiff has been located in the US all his life. Plaintiff avers that he is only guilty for account sharing. Notably, he only gave his login details to someone and they logged in to his account and played on it. Accordingly, Defendant’s action to ban Plaintiff’s account and to refuse to remove the said account from the ban amounts to immoral, oppressive and injurious conduct, to the detriment of Plaintiff.
14. As a result of Defendant’s actions and/or inaction, Plaintiff has lost his source of income, which he was depending on solely. He is therefore entitled to judgment in his favor.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
15. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 14 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
16. Plaintiff and Defendant entered a contractual relationship where Plaintiff obtained the services of Defendant.
17. Plaintiff did substantially all of the significant things that the contract required him to do in the business relationship, save for Plaintiff’s mistake of account sharing, which is not subject to the punishment of banning of an account.
18. Defendant had no reason to ban Plaintiff’s account. Therefore, all conditions required Defendant to continue honoring its part of the bargain by continuing to provide its services to Plaintiff.
19. Defendant’s conduct of banning Defendant’s account and refusing to remove the ban denied Plaintiff’s benefit under the business relationship and/or contract that existed.
20. In denying Plaintiff access to his account, Defendant did not act fairly and in good faith.
21. As a result of Defendant’s actions and/or inaction, Plaintiff has lost his source of income, which he was depending on solely. He is therefore entitled to judgment in his favor.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant:
- An order and judgment for an injunctive relief, compelling Defendant to remove the ban on Plaintiff’s account,
- An order and Judgement against all Defendant on all counts herein, in an amount to be determined by this Honorable Court,
- Any such other relief, as this Court deems just and equitable.
Executed this _____ day of May 2021 at ______, California, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant all requested relief in Plaintiff’s prayers above.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on [ENTER DATE], copies of the foregoing document has been sent to the Defendant in the following address:
ESL GAMING ONLINE, INC.,
1212 Chestnut Street Burbank,
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )