Walker v. Camelback Volkswagen LLC et al

Filing 45

ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Compel Arbitration. (Doc. 43 ) The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. (See document for further details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah M Fine on 8/28/18. (LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Lorraine R. Walker,

No. CV-18-0949-PHX-DMF

Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

Showcase Automotive LLC, et al.,

13

ORDER

Defendants.

14
15
16

Plaintiff Lorraine R. Walker filed a pro se amended complaint alleging violations

17

stemming from her car lease (the “Lease”) with Defendants. (Doc. 14) Defendants

18

answered and then moved to dismiss and compel arbitration. (Docs. 29, 31) Defendants’

19

motion is fully briefed and the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the parties’ consent to

20

Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Docs. 39, 41, 43)

21

Walker signed the Lease with Defendants that included an “Arbitration

22

Agreement” which states “You or we may choose to have any dispute between us

23

decided by arbitration and not by a court or by jury trial. . . . If you or we choose to

24

arbitrate a claim or dispute, you and we agree that no trial by jury or other judicial

25

proceeding take place.” (Doc. 14 at 1-5, 19, 20)

26

Defendants argue that this Arbitration Agreement applies here and is enforceable.

27

(Doc. 31) Walker argues that she was fraudulently induced to enter into the Lease and

28

that the Lease is unconscionable and, therefore, the Arbitration Agreement does not apply

1

to her claims. (Doc. 41) Defendants reply that her fraudulent inducement argument

2

should be heard by the arbitrator in the first instance, the Arbitration Agreement is not

3

unconscionable, the cost of arbitration will not be prohibitive, and that Walker is not

4

entitled to Court-supervised arbitration. (Doc. 43)

5

The Court agrees with Defendants. Walker’s fraudulent inducement argument is

6

about the leasing contract as a whole, not the arbitration clause in particular. Moreover,

7

the Arbitration Agreement contained an opt-out clause. (Doc. 14 at 20; Doc. 43 at 5) In

8

these circumstances, binding precedent dictates that Walker’s argument be evaluated by

9

the arbitrator. Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 71 (2010).

10

Walker’s unconscionability arguments are not persuasive and the Court

11

specifically notes that Walker did not “make a specific, individualized showing as to why

12

he or she would be financially unable to bear the costs of arbitration.”

13

Renaissance West, LLC, 307 P.3d 77, 80 (Ariz. App., 2013).

14
15

Clark v.

Finally, the Court notes that Walker points to no language in the Arbitration
Agreement that would support Court-supervised arbitration.

16

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

17

Complaint and Compel Arbitration. (Doc. 43) The Clerk of the Court shall enter

18

judgment accordingly.

19

Dated this 28th day of August, 2018.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-