Rollins v. Wink Labs, Inc. ( 2022 )

INT HEU NITSETDA TDEISS TRCIOCUTR T FORT HED ISTROIFCO TRE GON PORTLADNIDV ISION BRIARNO LLINS, Plaintiff, No.3: 02-cv-01220-MO V. OPINIOANN DO RDER WINKL ABSI,N Ca.D ,e lawcaorrep oration; anLda m.pElLuEsC TRONIINCCSa., , Delawcaorrep oration, Defendants. MOSMAN,J., Thisi bsce afosmreee o nP laiBnrtiRiaoffnl lMiontsi'foosrSn u mmaJruyd gm[eEnCtF 71P]l.a iansttkihsCffe o utrofit n tdh Daetfe ndanttsos h"ofatwihe lexe ids otfeav n aclei d, writatgerne etmoae rnbti atnrtdah,te er,en footr rei,ia sbslrueee m aointn hsqa ute staintodon " subseqsutertnihttkelre yoi nat lh isc uirsrsseuenefott rA l pyr2 i02l,0 2I2da..t1 I .a grweiet h PlaianndtG iRffAN Tt hmeo tion. STANDAORFDR EVIEW UndtehrFe e deArrabli tArca(tt" iFoAnA" "[)i,]m fatkhioenft g ha er bitargarteieomne nt ..b.ei ni sstuhceeo, u srhtap lrlo cseumemda rtiotl hyte r tihaelr 9eU o.fS..§"C I.4nt . h Nei nth Circ"u[ipata],r s teye ktiocno gm paerlb ithratasht beiu orndu enndt ehFreA At os ho(w1th )e exisotfeav n aclewi rdi,ta tgerne etmoae rnbti atnridaif,tet ex ;i (s2tt)sh t,ah tae g reetmoe nt arbitrate encompasses the dispute at issue.”! Ashbey v. Archstone Property Memt., Inc., 785 F.3d 1320, 1323 (9th Cir. 2015). The standard for assessing the existence of an arbitration agreement is akin to the summary judgment standard. Campos v. Bluestem Brands Inc., 3:15-CV-00629-SI, 2015 WL 5737601, at *2 (D. Or. Sept. 30, 2015) (citing Three Valleys Mun. Water Dist. V. E.F. Hutton & Co., 925 F.2d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 1991)). The party seeking to compel arbitration must satisfy this burden by a preponderance of the evidence. Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., 771 F.3d 559, 565 (9th Cir. 2014). DISCUSSION The crux of Plaintiffs argument is “[b]ecause Defendants have not demonstrated the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, there is no issue of fact to resolve at a trial.” Mot. for Summ. J. [ECF 71] at 2. Plaintiff also seeks to have the trial currently scheduled taken off of the docket and for the case to proceed to resolution on the merits. Jd. In opposing Plaintiff's motion, Defendants attempt to introduce a new declaration to support the existence of the arbitration agreement. Resp. in Opp’n [ECF 74] at 4-8. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff failed to submit any evidence to show there is no arbitration agreement and this is a “classic issue of fact for [a] jury.” Jd. at 10. 1 am unpersuaded by Defendants’ arguments. First, the parties had previously stipulated to resolve this issue on the record that was before Judge You, F. & R. [ECF 46] at 1, n.1, making consideration of the new declaration filed by Defendants and relied upon in their response improper. !T have previously found that Plaintiff’s “challenge falls within the scope of the alleged arbitration agreement.” Op. & Order [ECF 43] at 3. 2 OPINION AND ORDER Second, Judge You found that Defendants failed to meet their burden to show “through competent, admissible evidence that a valid arbitration agreement exists.” F. & R. [ECF 46] at 8. Therefore, under Ashbey, Defendants—as the party seeking to compel arbitration—failed to meet their burden to show the existence of a valid, written agreement to arbitrate. 785 F.3d at 1323. This finding is also supported by a factually analogous case decided by the Eleventh Circuit. In Bazemore v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, 827 F.3d 1325, 1333 (11th Cir. 2016), the defendant seeking to compel arbitration argued that the panel should remand for trial if it concluded that defendant failed to prove the existence of the alleged arbitration agreement. The Eleventh Circuit declined to remand for a trial, finding the defendant “would have us hold, essentially, that a party cannot lose a motion to compel arbitration for failure to prove that an . arbitration agreement exists without being afforded a second bite at the apple—an opportunity to prove the agreement’s existence at trial. This we decline to do so.” Jd. I find this reasoning sound and, applying Ashbey, decline to give Defendants a second bite at the apple. CONCLUSION Defendant failed to establish the existence of an agreement to arbitrate through competent, admissible evidence. Therefore, | GRANT Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 71] and strike the trial currently set for April 20, 2022. This case should proceed to resolution on the merits. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 24 day of February, 2022. United States Distrvct Judge 3 — OPINION AND ORDER