Larsen v. PTT, LLC
3:18-cv-05275
| W.D. Wash. | Jun 27, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Rick Larsen represented a certified class of Washington state residents seeking damages from High 5 Games (H5G), a developer of "social casino" games, and its subsidiary High 5 Entertainment LLC (H5E).
- The suit alleged H5G's games violated Washington's gambling and consumer protection laws, and included an unjust enrichment claim for profits from virtual coin sales.
- H5G transferred all social casino assets to H5E after class certification, prompting addition of H5E as a defendant for potential post-transfer liability.
- The Court previously ruled against Larsen's standing to sue H5E for post-transfer injuries, removed certain claims, and proceeds focused on damages for class members prior to the asset transfer.
- After a jury trial in February 2025 awarded substantial damages to both Larsen and the class, H5G and H5E moved to dismiss remaining claims in the Third Amended Complaint, including unjust enrichment.
- The current order resolves the status of unjust enrichment claims against both H5G and H5E based on prior rulings and litigation conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unjust enrichment claim survives vs. H5E | Standing should not preclude ongoing claim | Plaintiff lacks standing as he did not transact after H5E takeover | Claim against H5E previously dismissed for lack of standing |
| Whether unjust enrichment claim is abandoned vs. H5G | Claim was merely bifurcated and not waived; couldn't try to jury | Plaintiff's failure to reference or pursue claim constitutes abandonment | Plaintiff abandoned; dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether court can consider abandonment at 12(b)(6) | Motion must stay within TAC's four corners | Court can consider public record and procedural history when determining claim abandonment | Court may review its own record for claim abandonment |
| Whether omission from pretrial materials is dispositive | Not dispositive, claim could not go to jury, others were stayed | Omission shows intent to abandon; not even mentioned as pending or bifurcated except for other claims | Omission signaled abandonment, warranting dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (requirements for facially plausible pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausible claims)
- Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035 (basis for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6))
- BankAmerica Pension Plan v. McMath, 206 F.3d 821 (issue abandonment through litigation conduct)
- In re Hunt, 238 F.3d 1098 (pretrial orders amend pleadings for trial control)