Brown et al v. Comcast Corporation

Filing 28

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION AND STAY LITIGATION by Judge Jon S. Tigar; granting 24 Motion to Compel. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MELINDA BROWN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Case No.16-cv-03649-JST

v.
COMCAST CORPORATION,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO COMPEL INDIVIDUAL
ARBITRATION AND STAY
LITIGATION
Re: ECF No. 24

Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to compel individual arbitration and stay litigation.
ECF No. 24. The Court grants the motion.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Comcast Corporation (“Comcast”) called their cellular

15

telephone numbers in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) and/or the

16

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). ECF No. 1 ¶ 3. By using Comcast’s services,

17

each of the Plaintiffs agreed to Comcast’s “Subscriber Agreement,” which includes the following

18

“Binding Arbitration” provision: “Any Dispute involving you and Comcast shall be resolved

19

through individual arbitration.” ECF No. 24-1 at 32, ¶ 13. The arbitration provision defines a

20

“Dispute” as “any claim or controversy related to Comcast, including but not limited to any and

21

all: (1) claims for relief and theories of liability, whether based in contract, tort, fraud, negligence,

22

statute, regulation, ordinance, or otherwise; (2) claims that arose before this or any prior

23

Agreement; (3) claims that arise after the expiration or termination of this Agreement, and (4)

24

claims that are currently the subject of purported class action litigation in which you are not a

25

member of a certified class.” Id.

26

The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) applies to arbitration agreements in any contract

27

affecting interstate commerce. See Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 119 (2001);

28

9 U.S.C. § 2. Under the FAA, arbitration agreements “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable,

1

save upon such grounds that exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C.

2

§ 2. Therefore, on a motion to compel arbitration, the court’s role under the FAA is “limited to

3

determining (1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and, if it does, (2) whether the

4

agreement encompasses the dispute at issue.” Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207

5

F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). If the court is “satisfied that the making of the agreement for

6

arbitration or the failure to comply therewith is not in issue, the court shall make an order directing

7

the parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the agreement.” 9 U.S.C. § 4.

8

Where the claims alleged in a complaint are subject to arbitration, the Court must stay the action

9

pending arbitration if either party requests a stay. Id. § 3.
The Plaintiffs do not argue that the arbitration provision in Comcast’s Subscriber

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Agreement is invalid or unenforceable for any reason. Nor do they argue that the present dispute

12

falls outside the scope of the arbitration provision. Because the plain terms of the Subscriber

13

Agreement require the parties to arbitrate the claims at issue here, the Court grants the Defendant’s

14

motion and orders the parties to proceed to arbitration. This action is stayed pending the

15

completion of arbitration.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 21, 2016

18
19
20

______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2