Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01025/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01025-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Property Damage

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIK ESTAVILLO,

Plaintiff,

v.

BEHAVIOUR INTERACTIVE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-01025-WHO 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATIONA ND 

DISMISSING CASE

Re: Dkt. No. 13

Plaintiff Erik Estavillo filed his original complaint and motion for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis (“IFP”) on February 25, 2019. [Dkt. Nos. 1, 2]. Estavillo initially sought relief 

against Epic Games, Behaviour Interactive, and Starbreeze Studios over various grievances related 

to their video games. See Complaint. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Hon. Susan Van Keulen 

denied the IFP application without prejudice and after conducting an initial screening review of 

the complaint, found that it failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction or state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted. [Dkt. No. 5]. Estavillo was instructed to submit an amended IFP 

application and an amended complaint. Id.

On March 26, 2019, Estavillo filed his amended IFP application and complaint. [Dkt. 

Nos. 7, 8]. In the amended complaint, Estavillo abandoned his claims against defendants Epic 

Games and Starbreeze Studios. See Amended Complaint. Instead, he sought relief against 

defendants Behaviour Interactive and Value Corporation under California law and the Americans 

with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Id. Judge Van Keulen issued a second screening order that 

granted the amended IFP application but concluded that the amended complaint failed to establish 

a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. [Dkt. No. 11]. Estavillo was ordered to file a 

second amended complaint by May 13, 2019. Id. To date, he has not done so. 

Case 3:19-cv-01025-WHO Document 16 Filed 06/27/19 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Because Estavillo has not consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, and 

defendants have not been served and therefore have not made an election regarding the jurisdiction 

of a magistrate judge, Judge Van Keulen ordered the clerk of court to reassign this case to a 

district judge. Report and Recommendation to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915 (“R&R Order”) [Dkt. No. 13]. On May 31, 2019, this case was reassigned to me. 

[Dkt. No. 15]. Objections were due by June 13, 2019. As of the date of this order, no objections 

have been filed. I now consider Judge Van Keulen’s report and recommendation pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915.

Judge Van Keulen held that Estavillo’s amended complaint fails to establish federal 

subject matter jurisdiction. R&R Order at 4-8. She finds that there is no federal question 

jurisdiction because under the ADA, a claim against a website must be connected to a physical 

place and the amended complaint fails to allege that the digital store at issue connects to any such 

place. Id. at 4-5. She points out that it is clear to a legal certainty that the claims in the amended 

complaint do not meet the jurisdictional minimum to establish diversity jurisdiction. Id. at 5-7. I 

agree with her conclusions.

Judge Van Keulen recommends that I dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice 

because Estavillo has been given two opportunities to establish subject matter jurisdiction and that 

he has chosen not to file a second amended complaint. Id. at 7-8. As the judge to whom this case 

was assigned, I find Judge Van Keulen’s report thorough and correct; I adopt it in every respect. 

Accordingly the complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2019 

William H. Orrick

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01025-WHO Document 16 Filed 06/27/19 Page 2 of 2