- In fact, this matter is subject to dismissal under even the Purported Amendment. The dispute resolution clause expressly states that “[n]o class arbitrations or other grouping of parties is allowed.” Patreon, here, has made a grouping of Defendants. By its own terms, it is not entitled to file this suit and seek the relief it requests. Patreon is not entitled to an injunction that covers 72 defendants as a group—just as Patreon chose to deny Defendants the ability to join as a group and engage in collective action, it cannot now be allowed to obtain an injunction in violation of that term.
- - DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
no matches found
- PLAINTIFF PATREON, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [Filed concurrently with Declarations of Colin Sullivan and Tyler M. Layton in Support of Reply]
The irony is that Patreon is now complaining about the way a number of the Bears being sued have put Patreon on notice that they will find themselves facing more arbitrations due to Patreon's breach of contract involved in bringing the group lawsuit. Their Head of Legal cried about it in their most recent filing with a classic "this just proves" argument that would almost make one mistake him for a bowtie-wearing National Review conservative.
- Declaration of Colin Sullivan in Support of Reply
No class arbitrations or other grouping of parties is allowed. By agreeing to these terms you are waiving your right to trial by jury or to participate in a class action or representative proceeding; we are also waiving these rights.