Scump, H3CZ, and Activision Blizzard Head to Arbitration 

Scump, H3CZ, and Activision Blizzard head to arbitration to determine jurisdiction in Call of Duty League lawsuit. Image credit: Activision Blizzard

A new filing dated March 1 in the lawsuit against Activision Blizzard related to Call of Duty League filed by retired Call of Duty professional player Seth “Scump” Abner and OpTic Gaming founder Hector “H3CZ” Rodriguez in February notes that the plaintiffs and the defendant in the case have agreed to take the matter to an arbitration tribunal. 

Abner and  Rodriguez filed the lawsuit in a Los Angeles federal court last month, alleging that Activision Blizzard is operating a “100% monopoly” on Call of Duty esports with its Call of Duty League, which has caused financial harm to team owners and professional players. Collectively, the duo are seeking $680M USD in damages—plus attorneys’ fees, costs of the suit, and post-judgment interest. Because the claims concern what is described as “willful anti-competitive behavior,” they are also seeking treble damages. The case, “Rodriguez v. Activision Blizzard, Inc.,” was filed in the U.S. District Court – Central District of California Western Division on Thursday (Feb. 15) and lists Hector Rodriguez, Seth Abner, and HECZ, LLC as plaintiffs. 

Typically contracts between companies and individuals of this scope contain arbitration clauses to avoid taking disputes directly to court, and the agreement(s) signed between OpTic Founder Rodriguez, former professional Call of Duty Player Abner, and Activision related to the Call of Duty League contained “arbitration and confidentiality provisions,” according to the filing. 

All parties agree to put the lawsuit on hold to allow for the Arbitration Tribunals to determine jurisdiction. From the latest filing:

“The parties agree that the Arbitral Tribunals shall decide by final and binding arbitration all questions of formation, enforceability, and validity of the relevant arbitration provisions and all questions concerning the arbitrability of Plaintiffs’ claims in this action.”

In a later section:

“In the interest of efficiency and judicial resources, the parties agree to stay this action until the Arbitral Tribunals have decided the foregoing jurisdictional issues, and the parties respectfully request that the Court approve and so-order this stipulation. The parties will provide a status report to the Court within 14 days of the Arbitral Tribunals’ rulings on jurisdiction.”

Finally, plaintiffs reserve the right to future actions, etc.:

“Plaintiffs expressly reserve all rights, defenses, objections, and arguments as to the questions of formation, enforceability, and/or validity of the relevant arbitration provisions and/or the questions arbitrability of Plaintiffs’ claims and—without any prejudice to or waiver of those rights, defenses, objections, and arguments—agree to delegate those issues for final and binding decision by the Arbitral Tribunals. Defendant expressly reserves all rights, claims, and remedies in connection with its contention that Plaintiffs filed this action in breach of the arbitration and confidentiality provisions of the relevant agreements.”