UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No: 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff JOSE AGUIRRE, Plaintiff, on Behalf of a Putative Class, vs.CLASS ACTION DRAFTKINGS, INC. Defendant. ______________________/ PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 1 of 25i Table of Contents Page I.Summary of Plaintiffs Argument ..............................................................................1 II.Argument ......................................................................................................................2 A.MR. AGUIRRE DID NOT AGREE TO ARBITRATE CLAIMS ................................2 1.Policy Favoring Arbitration is Inapplicable to Contract-Formation Issues Raised by Plaintiff .................................................2 2.Ambiguities as to the Existenceof an Agreement to Arbitrate Must Be Strictly Construed Against DraftKings ............................................................................................3 3.The Terms of Use Inconsistently Calls for (1) Litigation and (2) Arbitration of Mr. Aguirres Claim ......................................4 4.DraftKings Promise to Arbitrate is Illusory ....................................7 a)DraftKings Unilateral Right Amend Any Term at Any Time for Any Reason and Without Any Notice Renders the Terms of Use Per Se Unenforceable ......................7 b)The Arising-Prior and Survival Clauses Cannot Save the Arbitration Agreement ..............................................11 c)DraftKings Disclaims the Accuracy of its Supposedly Binding Terms of Use ..........................................12 d)DraftKings Disclaims its Promise to be Bound by an Arbitrator .............................................................................13 B.THE ARBITRATION PROVISION IS UNENFORCEABLE AS UNCONSCIONABLE ...........................................................................................14 1.The Arbitration Agreement Violates Florida Law by Waiving Punitive-Damages Liability for Fraud .............................14 2.The Arbitration Agreement Violates Florida Law by Denying Consumers Injunctive ReliefWhile Preserving DraftKings Right to an Injunction ..............................15 3.The Arbitration Agreement Shocks the Conscience by (1) Reserving for DraftKings the Right to All Damages Available Under the Law While (2) Completely Insulating DraftKings from All Liability for Any Act ....................16 4.Offending Terms Cannot be Severed ...............................................19 III.Conclusion ..................................................................................................................20 IV.Request for Hearing ...................................................................................................20 Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 2 of 251 PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION Plaintiff, Jose Aguirre, as representative of a putative class, respectfully requests that this CourtdenyDraftKings,Inc.s(DraftKings)motiontocompelarbitration,andsubmitsthis supporting memorandum of law: I.Summary of Plaintiffs Argument Preoccupied with salvaging an unconscionable arbitration clause, DraftKings forgets that the parties never agreed to arbitrate in the first place. The Terms of Use, cited by DraftKings to compel arbitration, actually contains a compulsory litigation clause. The provision mandates that allclaimsarisingfromcustomersuseofDraftKingswebsiteacategorythatindisputably includes Mr. Aguirres claimbe litigated in a court of competent jurisdiction. Yet on the same pageofitsTermsofUse,DraftKingspurportstomandatethatthoseclaimsbesubmittedtoan arbitrator.DraftKingsapparentsolutiontothiscontradictionignorethelitigationclauseand enforcethearbitrationclausedefiesbasicprinciplesofcontractformation.Becausethese clausescannotbereconciled,therewasnomeetingofthemindsastoaformofdispute resolution, and thus necessarily no agreement to arbitrate.This Court need not even reach the conclusion above, however, because the Terms of Use containing the arbitration clause is not a valid contract. In the document, DraftKings reserves the right to, at any time, revoke, alter, and amend any of its obligations under the Terms of Use, at its sole discretion and without notice to its customers. Because this reservation renders DraftKings promisesillusory,itrobstheagreementofconsideration,preventingtheformationofavalid contract. Because arbitration is solely a creature of contract, it cannot be imposed here. EvenassumingthisCourtdeciphersanactualagreementtoarbitrate,thatagreementis unenforceableasunconscionable.Amongotherinfirmities,theagreement(1)inoneportion Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 3 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 2 precludes Mr. Aguirre from filing suit in court,1 while explicitly affording DraftKings that right; (2) limits Mr. Aguirres recovery in arbitration to (depending on the portion of the Terms of Use) either $100 or $0, while allowing DraftKings to recover ad infinitum; (3) preserves DraftKings righttoobtaininjunctiverelief,whileusurpingconsumers;and(4)insulatesDraftKingsfrom punitive damages for fraud, in violation of Florida law. In tandem, these terms are so one-sided and oppressive as to shock the conscience and necessitate denial of Defendants motion. II.Argument Absentavaliddelegationtoanarbitrator,thefederaldistrictcourtsaretaskedwith determining(A)whetherpartiesagreedtoarbitrateand(B)ifso,whethertheagreementis enforceable.GraniteRockCo.v.IntlBhd.OfTeamsters,561U.S.287,299(2010).Asthe Terms of Use does not contain a delegation clause, these issues are properly before the Court. A.MR. AGUIRRE DID NOT AGREE TO ARBITRATE CLAIMS DraftKingsspendsnearlyitsentiremotionattemptingtofortifythearbitrationclause againstargumentsofunconscionability.Thecourtneednotconsiderthisissuetodeny Defendants motion, as the parties never reached an arbitration agreement. 1.PolicyFavoringArbitrationisInapplicabletoContract-Formation Issues Raised by Plaintiff DraftKingsnotesthattheFederalArbitrationAct(FAA)embodiesastrongpublic policyinfavorofarbitration.Thispresumption,however,isapplicableonlyindetermining whetherandhowtoenforceanarbitrationprovisiontowhichpartieshaveagreednotin determining the threshold matter whether an agreement to arbitrate exists. The courts uniformly hold that while doubts concerning the scope of an arbitration clause should be resolved in favor 1Instarkcontrast,ofcourse,withtheportionoftheagreementmandatingthatMr.Aguirrefilesuitincourt,not arbitrate. Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 4 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 3 ofarbitration,thepresumptiondoesnotapplytodisputesconcerningwhetheranagreementto arbitratehasbeenmade.Goldman,Sachs&Co.v.GoldenEmpireSch.Fin.Auth.,764F.3d 210, 215 (2nd Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the presumption favoring arbitrability does not apply to Plaintiffs argument that Mr. Aguirre did not agree to arbitrate the claims. 2.Ambiguities as to the Existence of an Agreement to Arbitrate Must Be Strictly Construed Against DraftKings Anarbitrationagreementmustbeenforceableunderordinarystate-lawcontract principles in order for the Court to find that the agreement is valid. Collado v. J. & G. Transp., Inc., 2015 WL 1478609, at *3 (S.D. Fla. 2015) (internal quotations omitted). Pursuant to Florida law,2notonlyshouldarbitrationcontract-formationissuesnotbeinterpretedinfavorof arbitrability, any ambiguities should be interpreted against DraftKings as the documents author. DSLInternetCorp.v.TigerDirect,Inc.,907So.2d1203,1205(Fla.3dDCA2005)(Florida lawrequiresthatacontractbeinterpretedagainstthedrafterwhenthecontractcontains ambiguousterms.).Moreover,becausetheTermsofUseisacontractofadhesion,thisCourt shouldnotjustmerelyconstrue,butratherstrictlyconstrue,anyambiguityagainstDraftKings. Bakerv.SecuritasSec.ServicesUSA,Inc.,432F.Supp.2d120,124(D.Me.2006)(rulethat ambiguities are to be interpreted against the drafter is heightened in cases where the parties to thecontractareinunequalbargainingpositions)(internalquotationsomitted);Mulcahyv. NaborsWellServicesCo.,2010WL1881846,at*2(D.Mont.2010)(ambiguityinarbitration agreement should be construed most strongly against drafter). This rule is of particular import to the inconsistent-provisions issue raised directly below. 2 Since, as argued below, therewas no meeting oftheminds regarding the entire Terms of Use, the Massachusetts choice-of-lawclausewasneveragreedto.SeeNote5,infra.Regardless,giventhesimilaritiesinFloridaand Massachusetts law, it does not matter which states contract-formation principles govern; the same result would lie. Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 5 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 4 3.TheTermsofUseInconsistentlyCallfor(1)Litigationand(2) Arbitration of Mr. Aguirres Claim The Terms of Use provides: Any claim or dispute betweenyou and DraftKings that arises in whole or in part fromtheTermsofUse,theWebsiteoranyContestshallbedecidedexclusively by a court of competent jurisdiction located in Suffolk County Massachusetts. TermsofUse(TOU)at8.3Thisprovisionsignalstocustomersthatanylegaldispute involvingDraftKingswebsite,liketheclaimofMr.Aguirreandtheputativeclass,mustbe litigated in court. The civil action must, according to the contract drafted by DraftKings, be filed in Suffolk County, Massachusetts.4 An aggrieved customer reading this clause would know that arbitrationisnotanoption.Afterall,anyclaimordisputebetween[thecustomer]and DraftKingsthatarisesinwholeorinpartfromtheTermsofUse,theWebsiteoranyContest shall be decided exclusively by a court of competent jurisdiction TOU at 8 (emphasis added). Nonetheless,onthesamepageasthislitigationclause,theTermsofUseprovidefor arbitration: [a]nyandalldisputes,claimsorcontroversiesarisingoutoforrelatingtothis Agreement, the breach thereof or any use of the Websiteexcept for claims filed inasmallclaimscourtshallbesettledbybindingarbitrationbeforeasingle arbitratorappointedbytheAmericanArbitrationAssociation("AAA")in accordancewithitsthengoverningrulesandprocedures,includingthe SupplementaryProceduresforConsumer-RelatedDisputes,whereapplicable.In agreeing to arbitrate allClaims,you and DraftKings waive all rights to a trial by jury in any action or proceeding involving any Claim. TOU at 8. DraftKingscannotreasonablydisputethatthesamecontractsimultaneouslycalls,asto 3 A copy of the Terms of Use is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 4Plaintiffmakesnoteofthevenueclausenotbecauseitisbinding,butbecauseitiscompletelyinconsistentwith arbitration in thatit requires theuseof acourt for disputeresolution.Aselaborated upon extensively elsewherein this response, because the two dispute-resolution provisionsof which this venue clause is partare irreconcilable, both are void. Accordingly, Mr. Aguirre filed suit in the Southern District, where venue is proper in lieu of a valid contractual provision. Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 6 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 5 all disputes stemmingfrom Mr. Aguirres use of the website, for (1) trial in a courtof lawand (2) arbitration.The contradictory provisions doom DraftKings motion to compel, as [b]efore a party to a lawsuit can be ordered to arbitrate and thus be deprived of a day in court, there should be an express, unequivocal agreement to that effect. Samson v. NAMA Holdings, LLC, 637 F.3d 915,923(9thCir.2011)(emphasisadded)(citationomitted).Aprovisionthat(1)tellsa consumer to litigate then (2) tells her to arbitrate is the opposite of unequivocal. The Florida Supreme Courts decision in Basulto v. Hialeah Automotive, 141 So.3d 1145 (Fla.2014)isdeterminative.InBasulto,oneclausemandatedabench,ratherthanjury,trial; anothermandatedarbitrationwiththreearbiters;andathirdclausemandatedarbitrationwitha sole arbiter. Id. at 1150. The Florida Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that each of the competingdisputeresolutionprovisionscontemplatestheenforcementofadifferentremedy whosetermsandconditionsareirreconcilable...Id.TheFloridaSupremeCourtaffirmedthe trial courts finding as a matter of law that there was no meeting of the minds with respect to the terms bywhich [the dealership] intended the parties to be bound. There is accordingly no valid agreement for this Court to enforce. Id. ThefederalcourtsareinlinewithFloridashighcourt.See,e.g.,Stephensv.TES Franchising,2002WL1608281,at*3(D.Conn.2002)(denyingmotiontocompelarbitration where one provision stated thatall claims must be brought before a courtand another indicated that all trademark disputes are subject to binding arbitration); Mulcahy, 2010 WL 1881846, at *2 (motiontocompelarbitrationdeniedwhereclauseambiguousastoarbitrationbecauseitis susceptible to at least two reasonable but conflicting interpretations: (1) that it preserves a party's constitutionalrighttoajurytrialandaccesstotheCourtsand(2),thatitrestrictsthatrightby mandatingbindingarbitration.);LeaTaiTextileCo.,Ltd.v.ManningFabrics,Inc.,411F. Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 7 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 6 Supp.1404,1407(S.D.N.Y.1975)(findingnoagreementtoarbitratewheretwoprovisionsare inhopelessconflict).Inescapably,andfatally,theTermsofUsecallforthesimultaneous litigationandarbitrationofthesameclaimsincludingMr.Aguirresclaims.Thisdestroys DraftKings attempt to force arbitration. Additionalinconsistenciesastodisputeresolutionabound.Forexample,theTermsof Use state: ANYATTEMPTBYANENTRANTORANYOTHERINDIVIDUALTO DELIBERATLYDAMAGETHEWEBSITEORUNDERMINETHE LEGITIMATEOPERATIONOFANYCONTESTISAVIOLATIONOF CRIMINAL AND/OR CIVIL LAWS AND SHOULD SUCH AN ATTEMPT BE MADE,DRAFTKINGSRESERVESTHERIGHTTOSEEKDAMAGESAND OTHER REMEDIES FROM ANY SUCH PERSON TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW. TOUat3(emphasisadded).Thisprovisioncontrastsstarklywiththearbitrationclause. Adisputearisingfromonesattempttodeliberatelydamagethewebsiteorunderminethe legitimateoperationofanycontestonthewebsiteunmistakablyisadisputearisingout ofanyuseoftheWebsiteand,perthearbitrationclauseDraftKingsitselfwrote,necessarily shallbesettledbybindingarbitrationbeforeasinglearbitrator.TOUat8.YetDraftKings reserves the right to seek damages and other remedies from any such person to the fullest extent permitted by lawa right that by definition includes suit in court. Elsewhere,theTermsofUseprovidethat[t]heCompany,atitssolediscretion,may disqualify any entrant from a Contest, refuse to award benefits or prizes and require the return of any prizes, if the entrant engages in conduct the Company deems to be improper [or] unfair..., andthat[u]sersfurtheracknowledgethattheforfeitureand/orreturnofanyprizeshallinno waypreventDraftKingsfrompursuingcriminalorcivilproceedingsinconnectionwithsuch conduct. TOUat 2. A dispute concerning any improper[or] unfair conduct an entrant might Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 8 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 7 engage in regarding an online contest is, by definition, a disputearising out ofany use of the Website,TOUat8,andsupposedlysubjecttomandatoryarbitration.Yet,contrarytoitsown arbitration clause, DraftKings reserves, for itself only, the right to pursue civil court proceedings inconnectionwithsuchconduct.Thisunilateralprerogativetocommencecourtproceedings squarelydefiesDraftKingsargumentthatthepartiesmutuallyagreedtoarbitrateall disagreements. 4.DraftKings Promise to Arbitrate is Illusory a)DraftKings Unilateral Right to Amend Any Term at Any Time for AnyReasonandWithoutAnyNoticeRenderstheTermsofUse Per Se Unenforceable

A basic tenet of contract law [is] that in order for a promise to be enforceable against the promisor,thepromiseemusthavegivensomeconsiderationforthepromise.Gibsonv. NeighborhoodHealthClinics,Inc.,121F.3d1126,1130(7thCir.1997).Whereapromisor mayperformornot,solelyontheconditionofhiswhim,hispromisewillnotserveas consideration.JohnsonEnterprisesofJacksonville,Inc.v.FPLGroup,Inc.,162F.3d1290, 1311(11thCir.1998)(citationsomitted).Mostpertinenthere,[w]hereapromisorretainsan unlimitedrighttodecidelaterthenatureorextentofhisperformance,thepromiseistoo indefinite for legal enforcement. The unlimited choice in effect destroys the promise and makes it merely illusory, and the contract fails for lack of consideration. Floss v. Ryan's Steak Houses, 211 F.3d 306, 316 (6th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). These axioms apply to arbitration clauses. An arbitration agreement allowing one party the unfettered right to alter the arbitration agreements existence or its scope is illusory and thus unenforceable.Dumaisv.Am.GolfCorp.,299F.3d1216,1219(10thCir.2002).Here,the arbitrationclausewaspartoftheTermsofUse,whichDraftKingscouldamendanytime, Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 9 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 8 unilaterally and without notice: DraftKingsreservestherighttoamendtheseTermsofUseatanytimeand without notice, and it is your responsibility to review these Terms of Use for any changes.IfyoucontinuetousetheServicesafterwechangetheTermsofUse, you accept all changes. TOU at 9. Accordingly, at any timeeven while a potential litigant is playing the fantasy sportscontestthatformsthebasisofadisputeDraftKingscouldchangeitsobligationsunder the contract. Even after Mr. Aguirre had been aggrieved, DraftKings could impose additional obligationsuponMr.Aguirre,relieveitselfofanyofitsobligations,orbothallwithout notifying Mr. Aguirre. IfPlaintiffwishedtocompelarbitration,DraftKingscouldsimplyremovetheprovision fromtheTermsofUseuponMr.Aguirresselectionofthatremedy,oralterthearbitration clause so that it does not cover Mr. Aguirres claim. Because DraftKings can at any time change orrelieveitselfofthearbitrationagreement,itdidnotactuallyagreetoanything.SeeInre Zappos.com,Inc.,Sec.BreachLitig.,893F.Supp.2d1058,1066(D.Nev.2012)(deeming contractillusory,andrefusingtocompelarbitration,where,ifaconsumersoughttoinvoke arbitrationpursuanttotheTermsofUse,nothingwouldpreventZapposfromunilaterally changing the Terms and making those changes applicable to that pending dispute if it determined that arbitration was no longer in its interest.). DraftKings unlimited choice regarding whether tobeboundornot,andbywhichterms,destroysthepromiseandmakesitmerelyillusory, causing the contract to fail for lack of consideration. Floss, 211 F.3d at 316. Dumaisv.AmericanGolfCorp,299F.3d1216(10thCir.2002)isinstructive.Dumais had filed an EEOC complaint against her former employer. Id. at 1218. The employer moved to compelarbitration,citingahandbookprovisionthatcontainedanarbitrationclausebutalso Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 10 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 9 reservedAmericanGolfsrighttoamend,supplement,orreviseeverythinginthe[h]andbook with the exception of the employees at-will status. Id. at 1217. The district court constru[ed] the [h]andbook against the drafter (American Golf) and found that the agreement was invalid becauseitwasillusory,lackedmutuality,andwasnotsupportedbyconsideration,reasoning thattheagreementbinds[Dumais]butallows[AmericanGolf]freereintorenege.This lopsided agreement is illusory because it allows [American Golf] to unilaterally modify the terms atanytime.Id.at1218.TheTenthCircuitaffirmed,holdingthatanarbitrationagreement allowing one party the unfettered right to alter the arbitration agreements existence or its scope is illusory. Id. at 1219. DraftKings reservation of the right to amend the[] Terms of Use at any time and without notice, TOU at 9, is indistinguishable from American Golfs right to amend, supplement, or revise everything in the handbook. FurtherguidanceisprovidedbyDouglasv.JohnsonRealEstateInvestors,LLC,470F. Appx823(11thCir.2012)(applyingMassachusettslaw).5ThePlaintiffinDouglasfiledan employmentage-discriminationclaim.Id.at824.Thedefendantarguedthataclauseinthe employeehandbookdemandedbindingarbitration.Id.Douglasarguedthattheagreementto arbitrate was illusory, as Johnson reserved the right to at any time, change, revise, supplement, discontinue,orrescindanyorallofsuchconditions,policies,benefitsandproceduresorany otherprovisionofthisHandbookfromtimetotime,asitdeemsnecessaryorappropriateinits solediscretion,withorwithoutnoticetoemployees.Id.TheEleventhCircuitfoundthat 5DraftKingscitestothechoice-of-lawprovisionintheTermsofUsetoallegethatthedocumentshouldbe construedpursuanttothesubstantivelawofMassachusetts.Becausetheentirecontractisillusory,thereisno contract and thus no choice-of-law provision. In absence of an agreement, Florida substantive law should be used to construe the contract. See Grupo Televisa, S.A. v. Telemundo Communications Group, Inc., 485 F.3d 1233, 1240-41(11thCir.2007).If,arguendo,thisCourtfindstheTermsofUseenforceablegenerally,Massachusettslaw would, by contract, be used to determine whether the arbitration and litigation clauses conflict, as alleged in Section II.A.3,supra,ofthisresponse,andwhetherthearbitrationclauseisunconscionable,asallegedinSectionII.B., infra.ThesameresultdenialofforcedarbitrationwouldresultwhetherFloridaorMassachusettsprinciples applied, as the laws are substantially similar. Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 11 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 10 becauseJohnsoncouldmodifythe[agreement]unilaterallythatis,withoutDouglass agreementorknowledgeitspromisetoarbitratewasillusory,andrefusedtocompel arbitration. Id at 826. InreZappos.com,Inc.,Sec.BreachLitig.,893F.Supp.2d1058(D.Nev.2012) demonstratesthattheholdingsofDumaisandDouglasaretherule,nottheexception.Inthat case,thetermsofusepurportedly[bound]anyuseroftheZappos.comwebsitetomandatory arbitration,butifaconsumersoughttoinvokearbitrationpursuanttotheTermsofUse, nothing would prevent Zappos from unilaterally changing the Terms andmaking those changes applicable to that pending dispute if it determined that arbitration was no longer in its interest. Id. at 1066. The Court noted that, [i]n effect, the agreement allows Zappos to hold its customers anduserstothepromisetoarbitratewhilereservingitsownescapehatch[,leaving] Zapposfree at any time to require a consumer to arbitrate and/or litigate anywhere it sees fit. Id.The court joined those other federal courts that find such arbitration agreements illusory and therefore unenforceable. Id. (surveying case law). This case demands the same result. IfthisCourtweretofindthatcustomershadotherwiseretainedtheirrighttoforce DraftKingstoarbitrate,thatrightisquicklydashedbythisterminationclause:Inadditionto anyotherlegalorequitableremedy,DraftKingsmay,withoutpriornotice,immediatelyrevoke any or all of your rights granted hereunder. TOU at 5. Were Mr. Aguirre to elect arbitration to settlethisclaim,thisclausewouldaffordDraftKingstheabilitytosay,Sorry.Weare immediatelyrevok[ing]anyor all ofyour rightsgranted by the Terms of Use, includingyour righttocompelarbitration.BecausetheterminationclauseensuresthatDraftKings,asthe promisor, may perform or not, solely on the condition of [its] whim, [its] promise [can]not serve as consideration. Johnson Enterprises of Jacksonville, Inc. v. FPL Group, Inc., 162 F.3d 1290, Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 12 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 11 1311 (11th Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted). Formultiplereasons,then,thearbitrationagreement,aspartoftheTermsofUse,is devoid of consideration and void ab initio. b)TheArising-PriorandSurvivalClausesCannotNotSavethe Arbitration Agreement TheterminationclauseaboveispartoftheTerminationandEffectofTermination section of the Terms of Use, which more fully provides: In addition to any other legal or equitable remedy, DraftKings may, without prior notice,immediatelyrevokeanyorallofyourrightsgrantedhereunder.Insuch event,youwillimmediatelyceaseallaccesstoanduseoftheDraftKings Website.DraftKingsmayrevokeanypassword(s)and/oraccountidentification issuedtoyouanddenyyouaccesstoanduseoftheWebsite.Anysuchaction shallnotaffectanyrightsandobligationsarisingpriorthereto.Allprovisionsof theTermsofUsewhichbytheirnatureshouldsurviveterminationshallsurvive termination,including,withoutlimitation,ownershipprovisions,warranty disclaimers, indemnity and limitations of liability. TOUat5.Thenotificationthatrevocationofrightsshallnotaffectanyrightsand obligationsarisingprior,TOUat5(thearising-priorclause),doesnotsavethisillusory contractbecauseDraftKingsisnotboundbytheprovision.Norisitboundbythesurvival clauses,whichallegethattheprovisionsoftheTermsofUsewhichbytheirnatureshould survive termination shall survive termination, TOU at 5, and that the arbitration provision shall survive termination of this agreement. TOU at 8. DraftKingsomnipotentamendmentclauseassuresthoseprovisionsdonotbindthe companybyreservingforDraftKingstherighttoamendtheseTermsofUseatanytimeand withoutnoticeTOUat9.Wieldingthispower,DraftKingscanobliterateanycustomers rightsat any time, without notice, in two steps: (1) utilize theamendment clause to removethe arising-prior and survival clauses so that the consumers rights can no longer be grandfathered Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 13 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 12 in, then b) delete any right it wishes from the Terms of Use. Armed with this option, DraftKings retainsanunlimitedrighttodecidelaterthenatureorextentofitsperformance,which destroys the promise and makes it merely illusory. Floss, 211 F.3d at 316. c)DraftKingsDisclaimstheAccuracyofItsSupposedlyBinding Terms of Use CustomersviewDraftKingsTermsofUsebyaccessingitswebsite.Problematically, DraftKings expressly disclaims all content that appears on the site: THECOMPANYDOESNOTWARRANTTHATTHEWEBSITE,ANYOF THE WEBSITES FUNCTIONS OR ANY CONTENT CONTAINED THEREIN WILLBEUNINTERRUPTEDORERROR-FREE[OR]THATDEFECTS WILL BE CORRECTED THE COMPANY SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR THEUSEOFTHEWEBSITEINCLUDING,WITHOUTLIMITATION,THE CONTENT AND ANY ERRORS CONTAINED THEREIN. TOUat5-6.Elsewhere,DraftKingsprovidesthatitisnotresponsible foranyinabilitytoaccesstheWebsite,orwebpagesthatarepartoforrelatedtothe Website[or] typographicalor other errors. TOU at 3. TheTermsofUsearepartofthewebsiteandcertainlyqualifyassitecontent.In disclaiming the accuracy ofany content appearing on the site, DraftKings necessarily disclaims the accuracy of the Terms of Use, telling customers it is not to be relied upon.6 By design, then, DraftKings shields itself from consumers wishing to pursue their rights thereunder. This creation ofaself-servingescapehatchdeprivesthecontractofconsideration.SeeHirschiv.Newcastle Properties,Inc.,2006WL2927493,at*1(D.Colo.2006)(putativearbitrationagreement deemedunenforceableandillusorywherecompanyshandbookcontainingarbitrationclause 6 This is sound advice, as the Terms of Use is riddled with verifiably false statements. The documentproclaims, for example, that[n]o professionalor amateur sports leagueor any team associatedwith any professionalor amateur sports league is associated with DraftKings or in anyway affiliated or associatedwith the Contests.TOU at 9. In fact, DraftKings isto give merely a partial listthe official fantasy sports website of Major League Baseball and the National Hockey League and has signed exclusive deals with the New England Patriots and Denver Broncos. Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 14 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 13 providedthathandbookwasnotacontractandimpose[d]nolegalobligationupon company);InreZappos.com,893F.Supp.2dat1066(refusingtoenforceagreement[that] allow[ed]Zappostoholditscustomersanduserstothepromisetoarbitratewhilereservingits ownescapehatch,leavingthecompanyfreeatanytimetorequireaconsumertoarbitrate and/or litigate anywhere it sees fit.). d)DraftKings Disclaims its Promise to be Bound by an Arbitrator DraftKings promises to submit to an arbitral process whereby its customers can obtain all legal and equitable relief available in the courts of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. TOU at 8. But it then tells the consumer: UNDERNOCIRCUMSTANCESSHALLTHECOMPANYBELIABLETO YOUFORDAMAGESOFANYKIND(INCLUDING,WITHOUT LIMITATION,FORANYSPECIAL,DIRECT,INDIRECT,INCIDENTAL, EXEMPLARY,ECONOMIC,PUNITIVE,ORCONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES) THAT AREDIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY RELATED TO (1) THE WEBSITE,THECONTENT(2)THEUSEOF,INABILITYTOUSE,OR PERFORMANCEOFTHEWEBSITE[OR](5)ANYERRORSOR OMISSIONSINTHEWEBSITESTECHNICALOPERATION,EVENIF FORESEEABLEOREVENIFTHECOMPANYHASBEENADVISEDOF THEPOSSIBILITYOFSUCHDAMAGESWHETHERINANACTIONOF CONTRACT,NEGLIGENCE,STRICTLIABILITY[,OR]TORT[AND]IN NOEVENTWILLTHECOMPANYENTITIESANDINDIVIDUALSBE LIABLETOYOUORANYONEELSEFORLOSSORINJURYBY ACCESSINGTHEWEBSITE,YOUUNDERSTANDTHATYOUMAYBE WAIVINGRIGHTSWITHRESPECTTOCLAIMSTHATAREATTHIS TIME UNKNOWN OR UNSUSPECTED. ACCORDINGLY, YOU AGREE TO WAIVE THE BENEFIT OF ANY LAWTHAT OTHERWISE MIGHT LIMIT YOUR WAIVER OF SUCH CLAIMS. TOUat6(emphasisadded).Inotherwords,DraftKingssubmitstoarbitration,but UNDERNOCIRCUMSTANCESSHALLTHECOMPANYBELIABLETOYOUFOR DAMAGES OF ANY KIND that are awarded in that arbitration. TOUat 6. A promisecould not be more illusory. See Johnson Enterprises of Jacksonville, Inc. v. FPL Group, Inc., 162 F.3d Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 15 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 14 1290,1311(11thCir.1998)(ifapromise[]appearsonitsfacetobesoinsubstantialasto impose no obligation at all on the promisorwho says, in effect, I will if I want tothen that promiseisillusoryi.e.,apromiseinformbutnotinsubstance.)(internalquotations omitted). DraftKings promise to submit claims to an arbitrator possessing the authority to award damages,TOUat8,isthusnotbackedbyconsiderationbecauseDraftKingsTermsofUse ensure the company is not liable for satisfying any adverse judgment. Insum,becauseDraftKingsisnotactuallyboundbytheTermsofUseorarbitration clause therein, there is no arbitral agreement for this Court to enforce. DraftKings motion must therefore be denied without consideration of whether the putative agreement is unconscionable. B.THE ARBITRATION PROVISION IS UNENFORCEABLE AS UNCONSCIONABLE Becausethepartiesneveragreedtoarbitrate,thisCourtsinquiryshouldendhere. However,assumingthatMr.Aguirreagreedtoarbitrate,theagreementcannotbeenforced becauseitepitomizesunconscionability.Lyingamidanine-page,nearly6,000-worddocument consistingofsingle-spaced,size-9font,theadhesive,formarbitrationagreementcobbles togethernearlyeverydraconiancontractprovisionexistentinAmericanandEnglishlaw, notwithstandingthatmanyofthesetermscontradictothersinthesamedocument.Itstripsthe consumerofallreasonable,legalremedieswhileillegallyinsulatingDraftKingsfromall liability. The provision so shocks the conscience that it cannot be enforced. 1.TheArbitrationAgreementViolatesFloridaLawbyWaiving Punitive-Damages Liability for Fraud In Florida, an arbitration agreement cannot validly waive ones right to punitive damages forfraud.BeforeBasultov.HialeahAutomotivereachedtheFloridaSupremeCourt,theThird District Court of Appeal considered this precise issue. 22 So. 3d 586, 590 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009), Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 16 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 15 revd on other grounds, 141 So. 3d 1145 (Fla. 2014). Below, the trial court [had] found that the [arbitration] [a]greement was substantively unconscionable because it contained a waiver of right toseekpunitivedamages.Basulto,22So.3dat590.TheThirdDCAaffirmedthatruling, noting that, like Mr. Aguirres complaint, the complaint contains a claim for fraud, and punitive damagesareavailableinjudicialproceedingswherethereisafraudclaim.Id.Thecourt agree[d]withthetrialcourtthatitisunconscionabletoemployanarbitrationagreementto obtain a waiver of rights to which the signatory would otherwise be entitled under common law orstatutorylaw.Id.LikethecardealerinBasulto,DraftKingshereprovidedthatthatthe arbitratorshallnothaveauthoritytoawardpunitivedamages.TOUat8.Hence,likethatin Basulto, the waiver here is substantively unconscionable as violative of Florida public policy. 2.TheArbitrationAgreementViolatesFloridaLawbyDenying Consumers Injunctive ReliefWhile Preserving DraftKings Right to an Injunction DraftKings arbitration clause reserves for itself the right to all legal and equitable relief availableinthecourtsoftheCommonwealthofMassachusetts,TOUat8,including, necessarily, an injunction. But the corporation tells consumers, IN THE EVENT YOU INCUR ANY DAMAGES, LOSSES, OR INJURIES THAT ARISE OUT OF THE COMPANYS ACTS OROMISSIONS,THEDAMAGES,IFANY,CAUSEDTOYOUARENOTIRREPARABLE ORSUFFICIENTTOENTITLEYOUTOANINJUNCTIONPREVENTINGANY EXPLOITATION OF ANY WEBSITE OR OTHER PROPERTY OWNED OR CONTROLLED BYTHECOMPANYTOUat6(emphasisadded).AsidefromaffordingDraftKingsthe powertodefraudbroadswathsofFloridianswithimpunity,theclausewouldabrogatethe injunctivereliefthattheFloridaDeceptiveandUnfairTradePracticesAct(FDUTPA) explicitly allows. Fla. Stat. 501.211(1). Such is repugnant to Florida law. See Powertel, Inc. v. Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 17 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 16 Bexley,743So.2d570,576-77(Fla.1stDCA1999)(clauseforcingcustomerstowaive important statutory remedies, including injunctive or declaratory relief under FDUTPA, deemed void as violative of public policy); see also Gessa v. Manor Care of Florida, Inc., 86 So. 3d 484, 493(Fla.2011)(partiescannot,bycontract,directlyunderminespecificstatutoryremedies created by the Legislature). 3.The Arbitration Agreement Shocks the Conscience by (1) Reserving for DraftKings theRighttoAll DamagesAvailableUndertheLawWhile (2) Completely Insulating DraftKings from All Liability for Any Act Anunconscionablecontractis[a]nagreementthatnopromisorwithanysense,and not under a delusion, would make, and that no honest and fair promisee would accept. Hollins v. Debt Relief of Am., 479 F. Supp. 2d 1099, 1106 (D. Neb. 2007) (citing Black's Law Dictionary, p.75(8thed.2004)).Toestablishunconscionability,aplaintiffmustdemonstrateboth proceduralunconscionabilityalackofmeaningfulchoiceaboutwhethertoacceptthe provisioninquestionandsubstantiveunconscionability,whereinthedisputedprovisions [are]soone-sidedastobeoppressive.Skirchakv.DynamicsResearchCorp.,Inc.,432 F.Supp.2d 175, 179 (D. Mass. 2006). Here, the issue of procedural unconscionability can be dispatched with ease. Procedural unconscionabilitygenerally takes the form of an adhesion contract, which, imposed and drafted bythepartyofsuperiorbargainingstrength,relegatestothesubscribingpartyonlythe opportunitytoadheretothecontractorrejectit.Heflebowerv.JPMorganChaseBank,NA, 2013WL5476806,at*12(E.D.Cal.2013)(citationsomitted).Thearbitrationclausewas writtenbyDraftKingsand,asindicatedintheexplanationinDefendantsownmotionofhow DraftKingsusersregister,Mr.Aguirrehadnobargainingpowerandonlytheopportunityto adhere to the contract or reject it. Id. Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 18 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 17 Substantiveunconscionabilityisnocloserofanissue.Oppressivetermssopervadethe TermsofUsethattheyoverwhelmeventhestrongpublicpolicyfavoringarbitrationand mandate denial of Defendants motion. In one part of the agreement, for example, consumers are told that [i]n no event shall [DraftKings and its officers] total liability to you for all damages, losses,orcausesofactionexceedonehundreddollars($100).TOUat6.Meanwhile, DraftKingscanrecoverallofitsdamagesstemmingfromadispute.TOUat8(affording arbitratorpowertoawardalllegalandequitablereliefavailableinthecourtsofthe CommonwealthofMassachusetts.).ThisprovisionviolatesBasultov.HialeahAutomotive. Therein,theThirdDCAconsideredaclausethatlimitedconsumers,butnotthecardealers, recovery to $5,000. 22 So.3d 586, 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). Interpreting the clause in light of the FAA,theThirdDCAfoundnotonlythattheone-sidednatureoftheclauserenderedit substantivelyunconscionable,butthatitcouldnotbeseveredfromtheremainderofthe agreement, thereby defeating arbitration altogether. Basulto, 22 So.3d at 191. Becausethe$100capistermedinabsolutes[i]nnoeventshall[DraftKings]total liabilityexceed$100that sum must be interpreted to include all attorneys fees and costs. So, the most Mr. Aguirre could ever recoup is $100total. Laughably, that is $100 less than the mandatory $200 consumer filing fee under the AAA Rules that purportedly govern.See Motion to Compel Arbitration, Attachment 1, at p. 34. Incredibly, because of the liability cap imposed by DraftKings,consumerssuchasMr.Aguirrecouldneverdobetterinarbitrationthannettinga $100 losseven if they are 100-percent victorious in the eyes of the arbiter. 7 7 The Terms of Use do provide that customers canlitigate in small-claims court in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, TOU at 8, but this is of no practical value to Florida consumers. Assuming the small-claims court would award costs and fees, the total of any judgment, including costs and fees,still could, per the Terms of Use, not exceed $100 (or $0,see infra). To evenstepfoot in aBostonsmall-claimscourt,Mr.Aguirrewouldhaveto purchasea round-trip flight from Miami to Boston and a hotel room, which would probably exceed $500 total. If he won, Mr. Aguirre Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 19 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 18 While the $100 cap is plainly unconscionable, it gets worse. The Terms of Use elsewhere statesthatbyenteringintoaContestoracceptinganyprize,entrantsagreetoindemnify, releaseandtoholdharmlessDraftKingsfromanyandallliability,claims,oractionsofany kind whatsoever, including but not limited to injuries, damages, or losses to persons and property whichmaybesustainedinconnectionwithparticipation.TOUat2(emphasisadded).Its customers are further warned: UNDERNOCIRCUMSTANCESSHALLTHECOMPANYBELIABLETO YOUFORDAMAGESOFANYKIND(INCLUDING,WITHOUT LIMITATION,FORANYSPECIAL,DIRECT,INDIRECT,INCIDENTAL, EXEMPLARY,ECONOMIC,PUNITIVE,ORCONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES) THAT AREDIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY RELATED TO (1) THE WEBSITE,THECONTENT(2)THEUSEOF,INABILITYTOUSE,OR PERFORMANCEOFTHEWEBSITE[OR](5)ANYERRORSOR OMISSIONSINTHEWEBSITESTECHNICALOPERATION,EVENIF FORESEEABLEOREVENIFTHECOMPANYHASBEENADVISEDOF THEPOSSIBILITYOFSUCHDAMAGESWHETHERINANACTIONOF CONTRACT,NEGLIGENCE,STRICTLIABILITY[,OR]TORT[AND]IN NOEVENTWILLTHECOMPANYBELIABLETOYOUORANYONE ELSEFORLOSSORINJURY.BYACCESSINGTHEWEBSITE,YOU UNDERSTANDTHATYOUMAYBEWAIVINGRIGHTSWITHRESPECT TOCLAIMSTHATAREATTHISTIMEUNKNOWNORUNSUSPECTED. ACCORDINGLY,YOUAGREETOWAIVETHEBENEFITOFANY LAWTHATOTHERWISEMIGHTLIMITYOURWAIVEROFSUCH CLAIMS. TOUat6.Thisprovisionisnothingshortofabsurd.Underthecompanysdispute resolutionregime,theconsumercanbeheldliableforanyandalldamagesrecognizedunder Massachusetts law. TOU at 8. Meanwhile, by seeking harbor of the provision above, DraftKings remains free to harm consumers without consequence. More than perhaps any other clause, this wouldbeawardedhis$25back,pluscostsandfees.However,because[i]nnoeventshall[DraftKingsandits officers]totalliabilityto[theconsumer]foralldamages,losses,orcausesofactionexceedonehundreddollars ($100),thecostsandfeeswouldbecappedat$75,makingthetotalrecovery$100.EvenassumingMr.Aguirre proceededproseandhadnoattorneysfees,hewould,bywinning,actuallylose$400.Accordingly,itmakesno economic sense for him to attempt to recoup the $25 out of which DraftKings defrauded him in small-claims court. This is exactly what the corporation wants, and exactly why its scheme is unconscionable. Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 20 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 19 all-encompassing liability waiver impales DraftKings claim that it forged a fair and enforceabledealwithMr.Aguirretoarbitratealldisputes.Theallegedagreementisonethatnopromisor withanysense,andnotunderadelusion,wouldmake,andthatnohonestandfairpromisee would accept. It shocks the conscience and cannot be enforced by an American court. 4.Offending Terms Cannot be Severed Ifillegalitypervadesthearbitrationagreementsuchthatonlyadisintegratedfragment would remain after hacking away the unenforceable parts, the judicial effort begins to look more like rewriting the contract than fulfilling the intent of the parties. Booker v. Robert Half Intern., Inc., 413 F.3d 77, 84-85 (D.C. Cir. 2005). The more a party overreaches, the less likely a court will be able to sever the provisions and enforce the clause. Id. at 85. Given the infirmities in the arbitrationagreement,whichpermeatenearlyeveryoneofthenineTermsofUsepages, severance would essentially place this Court in the position of re-drafting from scratch. Among other fatal shortcomings, the arbitration agreement: (1) is devoid of consideration fromDraftKings,whichexpresslyprovidesitisnotbound,TOUat3,6,9;(2)hopelessly conflictswithalitigationclauseinthesamecontract,TOUat8;(3)precludesMr.Aguirre from filing suit in a court of general jurisdiction, while explicitly affording DraftKings that right, TOUat2,3;(4)preservesDraftKingsrighttoobtaininjunctiverelief,whileusurping Plaintiffs, TOU at 6, 8; (5) waives consumers right to punitive damages in violation of Florida law, TOU at 8; and (6) limits Mr. Aguirres recovery to, depending on the clause, either $100 or $0, while allowing DraftKings to recoverad infinitum, TOU at 2, 6. These provisions go to the heartofthecontractand,ifremoved,wouldrenderthedocumentanemptyshell.Theentire arbitration agreement should be declared void and defendants motion denied. Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 21 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 20 III.Conclusion Asdemonstratedabove,thepartiesneveragreedtotheTermsofUse,andthusnever agreed to arbitrate. The Courts inquiry can end there. However, assuming the parties did agree, thatagreementcannotbeenforcedbecauseitisunconscionable.Accordingly,Plaintiff respectfullyrequeststhatthiscourtdenyDefendantsattempttocompelarbitration,deny Defendantsattempttodismissthisclassaction,anddenyDefendantsattempttoobtain attorneys fees from Mr. Aguirre. IV.Unopposed Request for Hearing Plaintiff,pursuanttoLocalRule7.1(b),respectfullyrequeststhatthisCourtholda hearing on DraftKings motion. Plaintiff submits that entertaining oral argument would help the court obtain clarity on any issue that, due to page limits and the complexity of the issues, could not be exhaustively briefed. Plaintiff anticipates that a 30-minute hearing would suffice. Plaintiff has, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(3), conferred with Defendant and confirmed that Defendant is not opposed to a hearing on this matter. Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 22 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 21 Respectfully submitted, MASE LARA, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiff 2601 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 800 Miami, Florida33133 Telephone:(305) 377-3770 Facsimile: (305) 377-0080 By: /s/ Mason KernsRICHARD D. LARA Florida Bar No.: 987492 rlara@maselara.comCHRISTOPHER G. LYONS Florida Bar No.: 985457 clyons@maselara.comMASON KERNS Florida Bar No.: 91754 mkerns@maselara.com filing@maselara.com mnorona@maselara.comCase 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 23 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 22 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 19, 2015, I served the foregoing document with the Clerk to the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on allcounselofrecordidentifiedontheattachedServiceListviatransmissionofNoticesof Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. /s/ Mason Kerns MASON KERNSCase 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 24 of 25CASE NO. 15-CV-20353-Gayles/Turnoff 23 SERVICE LIST JORGE A. MESTRE, ESQUIRE KADIAN BLANSON, ESQUIRE CHARLIE WHARTON, ESQUIRE RIVERO MESTRE, LLP Attorneys for DraftKings, Inc. 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1000 Miami, Florida 33134 Telephone: (305) 445-2500 Fax: (305) 445-2505 jmestre@riveromestre.com kblanson@riveromestre.com cwhorton@riveromestre.com npuentes@riveromestre.com evonderosten@riveromestre.comreceptionist@riveromestre.com TIMOTHY W. LOOSE, ESQUIRE JAMES P. FOGELMAN, ESQUIRE AUSTIN SCHWING, ESQUIRE GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP Of Counsel for DraftKings, Inc. 333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 5400 Los Angeles, California, 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Fax: (213) 229-6234 tloose@gibsondunn.com jfogelman@gibsondunn.com aschwing@gibsondunn.com 18776//42v3 Case 1:15-cv-20353-DPG Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 25 of 25