【willbet Online casino real money】Federal court dismisses Blazesoft sweepstakes arbitration dispute

The willbet Online casino real moneylawsuit was filed by SCPS, LLC and SSPS, LLC, two companies owned by Blazesoft, which runs websites that include Sportzino, Zula Casino, and others.

It was filed in response to arbitration claims filed by around 1,000 individuals, assisted by two law firms, Kind Law and Ben Travis Law, through the American Arbitration Association (AAA).

These claimants, located in California, Oregon, Nevada, New York, and New Jersey, alleged various legal violations related to the Blazesoft-owned companies’ online gaming services.

In their arbitration claims, the individuals requested the arbitrations be conducted in San Diego, California.

Blazesoft, however, argued that the arbitration actions should not take place there. Instead, the companies divided the claimants into three categories.

In one category were claimants the companies argued should arbitrate in a separate tribunal, ADR Chambers, in Ontario, Canada.

The second category was made up of claimants who may be allowed to arbitrate with the AAA, but not in San Diego. 

Finally, the companies argued a third category of claimants had no basis to bring arbitration actions against them, because they were not users of their platforms.

Blazesoft, therefore, moved for a preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin the AAA arbitration proceedings and compel some claimants to arbitrate before ADR Chambers in Ontario.

Law firms file motion to dismiss

In response, the law firms representing the claimants, Kind Law and Ben Travis Law, filed a motion to dismiss the case along with two emergency motions.

One of the emergency motions requested a protective order, which would prevent the plaintiffs and their legal representatives from communicating directly with the claimants.

The other sought a temporary restraining order which would halt any arbitration proceedings taking place in Canada.

That came as a response to the sweepstakes operators beginning separate arbitration proceedings against some of the claimants through ADR Chambers in Ontario after the initiation of this lawsuit.

Court unwilling to participate

In its decision, the court opted to grant the defendant law firms’ motion to dismiss, based primarily on its lack of personal jurisdiction over the firms as well as issues related to subject matter jurisdiction.

It ruled that the plaintiff companies had failed to demonstrate that the firms, which are based in Nevada and California, had sufficient contacts with the District of Columbia to warrant the court’s jurisdiction.

Given that the law firms’ motion to dismiss was granted, their emergency motions, including a request for a temporary restraining order, were denied.

Although the court did not dismiss all claims against the individual claimants, it ruled that Blazesoft and its two sweepstakes companies had not established a sufficient likelihood of success in proving jurisdiction over these claimants.

As a result, the companies’ motion for a preliminary injunction was also denied.

The ruling significantly limits the operators’ legal options in their attempt to prevent arbitration proceedings from moving forward in the US.

At the same time, with the denial of the preliminary injunction, the arbitration proceedings with the AAA may continue unless further legal action is taken.

No further comment was available from the involved parties at the time of publication.