Justia U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff appealed from the district court’s order dismissing his action in favor of arbitration. Opus Bank cross appealed from the district court’s implicit denial of its motion to seal plaintiff’s complaint, and the district court’s denial of its motion for reconsideration as moot. The court held that federal arbitrability law applies in the present case; that the district court did not err in concluding that these parties’ incorporation of the Rules of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) constituted “clear and unmistakable” evidence of their intent to submit the arbitrability dispute to arbitration; that Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson controls the present case where there are multiple severable arbitration agreements, only one of which is at issue; and that in this case, plaintiff failed to challenge the specific agreement at issue, as Rent-A-Center requires. The court concluded that the district court erred in denying as moot Opus Bank's motion for reconsideration to seal plaintiff's complaint because final judgment and even the filing of a notice of appeal does not divest a district court of its jurisdiction over matters ancillary to the appeal, such as protective orders. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, and vacated and remanded in part. View "Brennan v. Opus Bank" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his employer, Archstone, in California state court alleging, among other claims, unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and equivalent state-law claims. Archstone moved to federal district court. On appeal, Archstone challenged the district court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration pursuant to a Company Policy Manual containing a Dispute Resolution Policy. The court concluded, pursuant to Kummetz v. Tech Mold, Inc., that the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 2, is narrowed by other federal statutes, such as Title VII, which "limit the enforcement of arbitration agreements with regard to claims arising under" the statute. This case is distinguishable from Kummetz and Nelson v. Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp. where the acknowledgment that plaintiff signed explicitly notified plaintiff that the Manual contained a Dispute Resolution Policy. Archstone presented plaintiff the "express" choice lacking in both Kummetz and Nelson and plaintiff knowingly waived his right to judicial forum for claims. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Ashbey v. Archstone Prop. Mgmt." on Justia Law

Petitioners, purchasers of luxury condominium units, seek a writ of mandamus directing the district court to vacate its grant of a motion, while arbitration was pending, to disqualify an arbitrator for evident partiality under 9 U.S.C. 10(a)(2). The court determined that it had jurisdiction under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651. In determining whether a petitioner has carried the burden of establishing a "clear and indisputable" right to issuance of the writ, the court examined the five factors set out in Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court: (1) the party seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such as a direct appeal, to attain the relief he or she desires; (2) the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way not correctable on appeal; (3) the district court’s order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; (4) the district court’s order is an oft-repeated error, or manifests a persistent disregard of the federal rules; and (5) the district court’s order raises new and important problems, or issues of law of first impression.The court concluded that the third and fifth Bauman factors, along with the first and second Bauman factors to a lesser extent, weigh in favor of granting the petition for mandamus. In this case, the district court's ruling was clearly erroneous as to the legal standard for "evident partiality" and the nature of the equitable concerns sufficient to justify a mid-arbitration intervention. Accordingly, the court granted the petition. View "Sussex v. U.S. Dist. Court for the District of Nevada" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a putative class action suit against Sirius XM after he received three unauthorized phone calls from Sirius XM on his cellphone during his trial subscription. Plaintiff had purchased a vehicle from Toyota that included a 90-day trial subscription to Sirius XM satellite radio. The district court dismissed the action and granted Sirius XM's motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 2. The court, applying well-settled principles of contract law, concluded that no valid agreement to arbitrate exists between plaintiff and Sirius XM because plaintiff never assented to the Customer Agreement. A reasonable person in plaintiff's position could not be expected to understand that purchasing a vehicle from Toyota would simultaneously bind him or her to any contract to Sirius XM, let alone one that contained an arbitration provision without any notice of such terms. Nothing in the record indicated that Sirius XM's offer was clearly and effectively communicated to plaintiff by mailing him the Customer Agreement and his continued use of the service after his receipt of the Customer Agreement did not manifest his assent to the provisions of the Customer Agreement. Further, the Customer Agreement is not a valid "shrinkwrap" agreement. Because the arbitration clause in the Customer Agreement is unenforceable for lack of mutual assent, the court need not decide whether the arbitration provision in the Customer Agreement is unconscionable. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit on behalf of himself and a putative class of consumers whose Touchpad orders had been cancelled, alleging that Barnes & Noble had engaged in deceptive business practices and false advertising. On appeal, Barnes & Noble challenged the district court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration against plaintiff under the arbitration agreement contained in its website's Terms of Use. The court held that there was no evidence that the website user had actual knowledge of the agreement. The court also held that where a website makes its terms of use available via a conspicuous hyperlink on every page of the website but otherwise provides no notice to users nor prompts them to take any affirmative action to demonstrate assent, even close proximity of the hyperlink to relevant buttons users must click on - without more - is insufficient to give rise to constructive notice. Therefore, the court concluded that there is nothing in the record to suggest that those browsewrap terms at issue are enforceable by or against plaintiff, much less why they should give rise to constructive notice of Barnes & Noble's browsewrap terms. In light of the distinguishing facts, the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Barnes & Noble's estoppel argument. Accordingly, the court held that plaintiff had insufficient notice of Barnes & Noble's Terms of Use, and thus did not enter into an arbitration agreement. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action suit to recover unpaid overtime wages from her former employer, Bloomingdale's. The district court granted Bloomingdale's motion to compel arbitration, determining that shortly after being hired by Bloomingdale's, plaintiff entered into a valid, written arbitration agreement and that all of her claims fell within the scope of that agreement. The court concluded that plaintiff had the right to opt out of the arbitration agreement, and had she done so she would be free to pursue this class action in court. Having freely elected to arbitrate employment-related disputes on an individual basis, without interference from Bloomingdale's, she could not claim that enforcement of the agreement violated either the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. 101 et seq., or the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq. The court concluded that the district court correctly held that the arbitration agreement was valid and, under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq., it must be enforced according to its terms. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale's, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action suit alleging that Nordstrom violated various state and federal employment laws by precluding employees from bringing most class action lawsuits in light of AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion. Nordstrom, relying on the revised arbitration policy in its employee handbook, sought to compel plaintiff to submit to individual arbitration of her claims. The district court denied Nordstrom's motion to compel. The court concluded that Nordstrom satisfied the minimal requirements under California law for providing employees with reasonable notice of a change to its employee handbook, and Nordstrom was not bound to inform plaintiff that her continued employment after receiving the letter constituted acceptance of new terms of employment. Accordingly, the court concluded that Nordstrom and plaintiff entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate disputes on an individual basis. The court reversed and remanded for the district court to address the issue of unconscionably. View "Davis v. Nordstorm, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and supplemental state law against the County and other County officials, alleging that they wrongfully investigated, prosecuted, and harassed plaintiffs in retaliation for plaintiffs' opposition to the actions of the County Sheriff, County Attorney, and their deputies. At issue was whether federal or state privilege law governs the admissibility of evidence of an alleged settlement reached during mediation of federal and state law claims. The court concluded that the privilege law governs, but that the County waived any available privilege. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's enforcement of the settlement agreement reached in mediation. View "Wilcox v. Arpaio" on Justia Law

After Reno's financing collapsed, Reno initiated an arbitration before FINRA to resolve its claims against Goldman arising out of their contractual relationship. Goldman then filed this action to enjoin the FINRA arbitration. The court concluded that it, rather than FINRA, must determine the arbitrability of this dispute. Although Reno qualified as Goldman's customer under FINRA Rule 12200, the court held that Reno disclaimed its right to FINRA arbitration by agreeing to the forum selection clauses in the parties' contracts. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction and final judgment in favor of Reno. Despite Goldman's "overwhelming likelihood of success on the merits," the court remanded to the district court to consider the remaining Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. factors. View "Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. City of Reno" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging that Consumerinfo had violated various California consumer protection laws. At issue was whether the court had jurisdiction to hear appeals from district court orders staying judicial proceedings and compelling arbitration of the named plaintiffs' individual claims. The court concluded that the structure of the statute suggested that Congress intended to remove appellate jurisdiction from all orders listed in 9 U.S.C. 16(b)(1)-(4), regardless of whether any such order could otherwise be deemed collateral. The history of section 16 also demonstrated that Congress intended 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) to provide the sole avenue to immediate appeal of an order staying judicial proceedings and compelling arbitration. Therefore, the courts joined its sister circuits in concluding that section 1292(b) provided the sole route for immediate appeal of an order staying proceedings and compelling arbitration. Accordingly, the court dismissed plaintiffs' appeal. Alternatively, the court denied plaintiffs' petition for mandamus where the district court's well-reasoned decision was plainly not a usurpation of judicial power or a clear abuse of discretion. View "Johnson v. ConsumerInfo.com, Inc." on Justia Law