High 5 Denied Motion to Dismiss in California Civil Case

Richard Janvrin
By: Richard Janvrin
Aug 20, 2025
Legal
High 5 Denied Motion to Dismiss in California Civil Case

Photo by Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Key Takeaways

  • High 5 filed to dismiss a civil complaint, but was denied
  • High 5 has now filed a motion for arbitration
  • The initial complaint was filed in January by Thomas Portugal

On Thursday, High 5 got word of their motion to dismiss a civil complaint against them in California. 

The verdict, sent down by the San Francisco County Superior Court, was denied. 

Now, High 5, in a separate motion, has filed for arbitration, citing clauses in their terms and conditions. 

Why the Motion Was Dismissed 

The plaintiff in this case is Thomas Portugal. High 5 filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Portugal lacked standing and that the lawsuit violated California's Unfair Competition Law. 

The court didn't see it that way, though. The court found that his allegations were proper, and it also added that what Portugal pleaded was to be accepted as true. 

That said, the decision isn't regarding the merits of the overall lawsuit.

Portugal filed the complaint in January. He claimed that High 5 was operating an illegal gambling site. High 5 is a sweepstakes casino that's available in other states. 

Next up, though, is arbitration. 

High 5's Motion for Arbitration

While the motion to dismiss failed, High 5 has since filed a motion for arbitration as the terms and conditions mention arbitration. 

Here's what the terms say: 

“arbitration means [that] you will not be able to seek damages in court or present your case to a jury” and “the parties shall use their best efforts to settle any dispute, claim, question, or disagreement and engage in good faith negotiations which shall be a pre-condition to either party initiating a formal arbitration as provided in Section 16. If the parties do not reach an agreed upon solution within a period of thirty (30) days from the time of the initial Notice, then either party may initiate binding arbitration, to the extent permitted by law, as the sole means to resolve claims…”

We've seen this before. In California, a case involving Stake.us was sent to arbitration after a lawsuit was filed. 

However, we've also now seen platforms such as Modo.us provide a message upfront to players regarding this, with a waiver to the right of going to trial. So, instead of it being within the terms and conditions, players are aware of this from the get-go. 

If the motion for arbitration fails, we could see a trial, which is something that you don't commonly see when it comes to sweepstakes casinos. 

We'll see what happens regarding this latest motion soon. 

Richard Janvrin is a graduate of the University of New Hampshire. He started writing as a teenager before breaking into sports coverage professionally in 2015. From there, he entered the iGaming space in 2018 and has covered numerous aspects, including news, reviews, bonuses/promotions, sweepstakes casinos, legal, and more.