IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
NO . : 5:17-CV-534 - H

EPIC GAMES , INC .
Plaintiff ,

v.
ORDER

C . R.,
Defendant .

This matter is before the court on the letter sent to this
court

by Lauren

Defendant C . R.,
dismiss .

Rogers
which

[DE # 1 4) .

("Ms .
this

Rogers " ) ,

court

has

mother

and

guardian

of

construed as

a motion

to

Plaintiff has responded ,

and this matter is

ripe for adjudication .
BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed a complaint in this matter on October 23 ,
2017 .

On October 27 , 2017 , the clerk ' s office issued a summons to

defendant C . R.
complaint

and

defendant

C. R.

It appears that at th e time of filing of the
issuance
was

a

of

minor .

the

summons ,

plaintiff

On November

received a letter from Lauren A.

15 ,

was

201 7 ,

unaware

the

court

Rogers on behalf of her minor

Case 5:17-cv-00534-H Document 22 Filed 07/12/18 Page 1 of 6

 son , C.R .,

in which she asks t h e court to dismiss the complaint

against C.R .
Up on realizing that defendant C . R.

was a minor ,

sought an amended summons to effect proper service .

plaintiff

As detailed

in its motion for entry of default and declaration of service ,
plaintiff

appears

to

have

now

effectuated

proper

Plaintiff then asked the court to enter default
defendant to answer or otherwise respond .

service .

for failure of

This court found that

while it is tr u e that defendant has not responded since proper
service was effectuated ,
#6)

the letter from defendant ' s mother

[DE

detailing why this matter should be dismissed could not be

ignored .

Therefore , the court construed the letter [DE #6)

as a

motion to dismiss , and denied without prejudice defendant ' s motion
for

entry of default . 1

The

court notes

no

further

filings

or

letters have been received from defendant or his guardian .
Plaintiff makes the following allegations in its complaint .
Plaintiff is a Cary , North Caro lina - based developer and publishe r
of computer games and computer game engine and content creation
software .

Plaintiff is the creator and owner of the popular game ,

Fortnite , a co - op survival and building action game . Plaintiff is
the author and owner of all rights ,

title ,

and interest in the

1

The court acknowledges that although it has construed the letter , in an
abundance of caution , as a motion to dismiss , there has been no official
appearance by anyone on behalf of the minor defendant.
The letter construed as
a motion to dismiss is found redacted at DE #14 .

2

Case 5:17-cv-00534-H Document 22 Filed 07/12/18 Page 2 of 6

 copyrights

in

Fortn i te ,

without

incl u ding

limitation ,

its

underlying computer software and the audio visual works created by
the software .

These copyrights are detailed in the complaint .

use plaintiff ' s services ,

To

such as playing Fortnite on a personal

computer , a user must create an account with EPIC and affirmatively
acknowledge that he has read and agreed to the Terms of Service .
Plaintiff alleges defendant has been banned from using plaintiff ' s
services at least 14 times for cheating , each time creating a user
account and affirmatively acknowledging acceptance of the terms .
As detailed in the complaint , defendant used cheat software while
playing Fortnite to unlawfully modify the software so that he had
an unfair advantage over other players .

He also operates at least

two YouTube channels where he actively promotes , distributes , and
induces others to use cheat software .
COURT'S DISCUSSION
I.

Standard of Review

A federal district court confronted with a motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim should v i ew the allegations of the
complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

See Ibarra

v . United States ,

The intent

of

Rule

12 (b) ( 6)

120 F . 3d 472 ,
is

to

test

474
the

(4th Cir . 1 997)
sufficiency

Edwards v. City of Goldsboro , 178 F . 3d 231 , 243

of

a

complaint .

(4th Cir.

1999) .

A Rule 12(b) (6) motion "' does not resolve contests surrounding the

3

Case 5:17-cv-00534-H Document 22 Filed 07/12/18 Page 3 of 6

 facts , the merits of a claim , or the applicability of defenses .'"
Id.

(quoting Republican Party v. Martin ,

Cir . 1992)) .
be

980 F . 2d 943 ,

952

" [O]nce a claim has been stated adequately ,

supported by

showing

any

set

allegations in the complaint ."

of

facts

consistent

(4th

it may

with

the

Bell Atlantic Corp . v . Twombly ,

550 U. S . 544 , 563 (2007) .
" [A] complaint need not ' make a case ' against a defendant or
' forecast evidence sufficient to prove an element '
Chao v. Rivendell Woods ,
v.

Inc .,

415 F . 3d 342 ,

United States ,

289

349

of the claim ."
(4th Cir . 2005)

(quoting

Iodice

F . 3d 270 ,

281

(4th Cir .

2002)) .

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides

" for simplicity in pleading that intends to give little more than
notice to the defendant of the plaintiff ' s claims and that defers
until

after discovery any challenge to those
Teachers '

they rely on facts . "

F . 3d 162 , 170 (4th Cir . 2 0 0 7) .

claims

insofar as

Ret . Sys . of La . v . Hunter ,

477

A complaint is generally sufficien t

if its "' allegations are detailed and informative enough to enable
the defendant
Charles

Alan

Procedure ,

§

to

respond .'"

Wright
1215

at

&

Arthur
193

(3d

Chao ,
R.
ed .

415

F . 3d at

Miller ,

349

Federal

2004))

Thus ,

(quoting 5

Practice
a

and

complaint

satisfies the Rules if it gives " fair notice " of the claim and
" the grounds upon which it rests ."

Twombly ,

550 U. S . at 554 - 55

(internal quotation marks omitted) .

4

Case 5:17-cv-00534-H Document 22 Filed 07/12/18 Page 4 of 6

 II.

Analysis

Plaintiff , in its response memo , has detailed for the court
the arguments made by defendant in its letter deemed a motion to
dismiss and given a detailed response of why those arguments fail
without pr o per supp o rt .
response memo randum ,

[DE #17 at 7] .

As detailed in plaintiff ' s

defendant has not shown that the complaint

fails to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for relief that
is plausible on its face ; therefore ,

in the light most favorable

to the plaintiff , plaintiff has stated a plausible claim , and the
motion to dismiss must be denied .

See ,

S. .:_r Joe Hand Promotions ,

-~-:.

Inc . v . Blackburn , No . 7 : 11 - CV- 276 - BO , 2012 WL 4863697

(2012) .

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons , the letter construed as a motion
to dismiss [DE #14] is DENIED . Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 1 2 (a) ( 4) , defendant shall have 14 days from notice of
this c o urt ' s instant order denying the letter deemed motion to
dismiss t o file an answer to plaintiff ' s complaint .

Defendant is

additionally reminded to file a proper notice of appearance in
accordance with the Local Rules of this court .

In an abundance

of caution , the clerk is directed to serve a copy of this order
on

defendant ,

addresses :

C . R.,

through

his

mother ,

c / o Lauren Rogers ,

at

both

the

following

5 Vireo Circle , Newark , DE

5

Case 5:17-cv-00534-H Document 22 Filed 07/12/18 Page 5 of 6

 19711 and C . R ., c/o Lauren Rogers , 501 West Ave ., New Castle , DE
19720 .

~

This ~ day of July . 2018 .

tes District Judge
At Greenville , NC
#26

6

Case 5:17-cv-00534-H Document 22 Filed 07/12/18 Page 6 of 6