A federal judge in California has declined to send a lawsuit against VGW Holdings and its partners to arbitration. The ruling holds that the spouses suing the company are not bound by the arbitration terms their partners accepted.
U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín issued the order on September 18, 2026, in Brown v. VGW Holdings US Inc., No. 4:25-cv-07071, in the Northern District of California. According to the order published on GovInfo, the court denied the motion to compel arbitration and the motions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction.
The Ninth Circuit docketed a notice of appeal on October 6.
The complaint was filed August 20, 2025, as a putative class action. Four plaintiffs remain: John Brown, Trena Ostlund, Zachary Parker and Eve Fields. Three others, Cleveland Granderson, Matthew Blatt and Karim Laury, voluntarily dismissed their claims without prejudice.
The plaintiffs seek to recover money their spouses lost on VGW’s Chumba Casino, LuckyLand Slots and Global Poker apps. They bring claims under state gambling-loss statutes and California’s Unfair Competition Law. The order notes that these are allegations, taken as true at this stage.
Defendants include founder Laurence Escalante, several VGW entities, and four “Partner Defendants”: Jumio, Yodlee, Trustly and Brian Christopher Misfud. The complaint alleges they supported or promoted the apps.
VGW argued that equitable estoppel should bind the plaintiffs to the arbitration agreements their spouses signed. Because neither side contested that the New York Convention applied, the court used federal substantive law. It relied on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Comer v. Micor, Inc.
The court found the plaintiffs did not “knowingly exploit” agreements they never signed. Their claims arise from state statutes, not from the contracts. The court rejected three VGW arguments:
The court found no general jurisdiction over the VGW U.S. entities, concluding they were not “at home” in California. It did find specific jurisdiction, citing alleged ongoing contracts between VGW and the Partner Defendants, which the order describes as California entities.
The order acknowledged that California’s interest is reduced because no plaintiff lives in the state, but said that did not make litigation unreasonable. It also said whether plaintiffs can assert other states’ laws is a class-certification question under Rule 23, not a standing issue.
The appeal is Ninth Circuit No. 26-6577. Under the court’s schedule, the opening brief is due December 24, 2026, and the answering brief is due January 25, 2027. Orders denying motions to compel arbitration are generally appealable under 9 U.S.C. § 16.
Loading …
