On Wednesday, September 9, 2026, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona issued an order in the case of Christopher Taylor Kubrick Soleto, Plaintiff, v. AWP Gaming LLC, et al., Defendants, detailing the dismissal of several claims and defendants while allowing others to proceed.
The ruling, authored by United States District Judge Michael T. Liburdi, addressed the plaintiff’s applications for in forma pauperis status, alternative service of process, and a temporary restraining order.
The case originated from two contracts between the plaintiff and AWP Gaming LLC. The first, a “Roblox Game Development Contract” dated April 15, 2021, stipulated the development of a Roblox mobile gaming app for $500. The plaintiff paid the fee, but no performance was delivered.
The second contract, the “Aliees Master Agreement” from January 21, 2022, involved a $10,000 payment from the plaintiff in exchange for a bundle of Aliees brand non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and cryptocurrency tokens. AWP Gaming LLC was to list the NFTs on OpenSea, with terms regarding sale proceeds and royalties that were contradictory. The plaintiff paid $10,000, received cryptocurrency tokens alleged to be illiquid and worthless, and no NFTs were sold or proceeds distributed.
The plaintiff also alleged that in September 2025, a sales manager for AWP Gaming Studios LLC, Michael Miller, conditioned payment on the removal of online reviews. The plaintiff removed a Google review after receiving $1,000 and partial weekly payments, but the promised weekly payments were not fully made, leading to the review’s reposting. A similar offer was made regarding a Better Business Bureau complaint, resulting in additional payments to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff initiated legal action through arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (AAA), but the AAA declined to administer the case due to the business defendants’ failure to provide a required waiver and fees. The plaintiff subsequently filed suit in federal court.
The court granted the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, acknowledging his insufficient funds to cover filing fees. However, the court screened the plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and dismissed numerous claims and defendants. The court found that the plaintiff had improperly used group pleading and failed to allege specific misconduct against many of the named defendants, leading to their dismissal. Fictitious defendants were also dismissed.
The court allowed the plaintiff to proceed on claims of breach of contract against AWP Gaming LLC only (Count IV), unjust enrichment against AWP Gaming LLC only (Count V), and conversion against AWP Gaming LLC only (Count VIII). The claim for alter ego liability was dismissed as a standalone cause of action but could be pursued as a derivative theory concerning AWP Gaming LLC and Christopher Maxon.
Claims for racketeering, fraud in the inducement, economic coercion and review suppression, intentional infliction of emotional distress, injunctive relief, and constructive trust were dismissed for various pleading deficiencies, including failure to meet heightened pleading standards for fraud and racketeering, lack of private cause of action for certain claims, and failure to plead extreme and outrageous conduct for emotional distress.
The court also denied the plaintiff’s renewed motion for a temporary restraining order, finding that he had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits for a constructive trust claim, a prerequisite for equitable relief that would overcome the prohibition against freezing assets solely for a money judgment. Additionally, the motion for alternative service of process was denied, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that traditional service methods were impracticable.
Please contact BlockTribune for access to a copy of this filing.
Be the first to comment