Estrada et al v. CleanNet USA, Inc. et al
Filing
77
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 2/24/15. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2015)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
ESTHER ESTRADA, et al.,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
No. C 14-01785 JSW
Plaintiffs,
v.
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS
TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
CLEANNET USA, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
/
15
16
Now before the Court are three motions to dismiss or to compel arbitration, filed by
17
Defendants. (ECF Nos. 40, 41, 42.) Having carefully considered the parties’ pleadings and
18
relevant legal authority, the Court hereby GRANTS the motions to compel arbitration.
19
20
BACKGROUND
The following facts are drawn from the operative complaint. Plaintiffs Esther Estrada,
21
Isaac Carrazco, and Maria Jacobo (“Plaintiffs”) are California residents who seek to represent a
22
class of individuals allegedly injured by corporate Defendants CleanNet USA, D&G
23
Enterprises, Inc., CleanNet of San Jose, CleanNet of Southern California, CleanNet of San
24
Diego, CleanNet of Sacramento, and individual Defendants Mark Salek and David Crum
25
(collectively, “Defendants”). Defendants are alleged to operate an integrated business wherein
26
CleanNet USA controls its Area Operators, who in turn sell franchises to individuals. Each
27
Plaintiff purchased a franchise. To purchase a franchise, each Plaintiff signed a franchise
28
agreement. All three franchise agreements contained dispute resolution provisions and class
1
action waivers.1 All three franchise agreements provide that the parties must first attempt to
2
resolve disputes through direct negotiation. (FAC Ex. A; Crum Decl. Exs. A, B.) They then
3
provide that, before a demand for arbitration can be made, the parties must attempt to settle
4
their dispute through mediation. (Id.) If that fails, “[a]ll disputes, controversies, and claims of
5
any kind arising between the parties, including but not limited to claims arising out of or
6
relating to this Agreement . . . shall be settled by arbitration . . . .” (Id.) Finally, the agreements
7
provide that “Franchisee shall not seek to arbitrate or litigate as a representative of, or on behalf
8
of, any other person or entity, any dispute, controversy, and claim of any kind arising out of or
9
relating to this Agreement . . . .” (Id.) Plaintiffs not only signed these agreements, they
initialed each page. (Id.)
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
On April 18, 2014, Plaintiffs filed this putative class action. On June 03, 2014,
12
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging sixteen causes of action. Defendants now move
13
to compel arbitration, or to dismiss the complaint.
14
ANALYSIS
15
A.
Legal Standards Applicable to Motions to Compel Arbitration.
16
Pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), arbitration agreements “shall be valid,
17
irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds that exist at law or in equity for the
18
revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. Once the Court has determined that an arbitration
19
agreement involves a transaction involving interstate commerce, thereby falling under the FAA,
20
the Court’s only role is to determine whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and whether
21
the scope of the parties’ dispute falls within that agreement. United Computer Sys. v. AT&T
22
Corp., 298 F.3d 756, 766 (9th Cir. 2002); Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d
23
1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000); 9 U.S.C. § 4.
24
The FAA represents the “liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements” and
25
“any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of
26
arbitration.” Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25 (1983).
27
28
Esther Estrada’s franchise agreement differs from those entered into by the other two
Plaintiffs in a manner that does not materially alter these provisions.
1
2
1
Under the FAA, “once [the Court] is satisfied that an agreement for arbitration has been made
2
and has not been honored,” and the dispute falls within the scope of that agreement, the Court
3
must order arbitration. Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395, 400
4
(1967). The “central purpose of the [FAA is] to ensure that private agreements to arbitrate are
5
enforced according to their terms.” Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U.S.
6
52, 53-54 (1995). The “preeminent concern of Congress in passing the [FAA] was to enforce
7
private agreements into which parties had entered, a concern which requires that [courts]
8
rigorously enforce agreements to arbitrate.” Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-
9
Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 625-26 (1985) (quotations omitted).
Notwithstanding the liberal policy favoring arbitration, by entering into an arbitration
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
agreement, two parties are entering into a contract. Volt Info. Scis., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of Leland
12
Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 479 (1989) (noting that arbitration “is a matter of consent,
13
not coercion.”). Thus, as with any contract an arbitration agreement is “subject to all defenses
14
to enforcement that apply to contracts generally.” Ingle v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 328 F.3d
15
1165, 1170 (9th Cir. 2003).
16
B.
The Franchise Agreements Are Not Unconscionable.
17
Plaintiffs argue that the dispute resolution provisions are both procedurally and
18
substantively unconscionable. They contend that the unconscionability permeates the entirety
19
of the franchise agreements, and that the agreements as a whole are thus unenforceable.
20
Unconscionability remains a basic contract defense that may be used to invalidate
21
arbitration provisions. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, __ U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 1740, 1746
22
(2011). “Like other contracts, an arbitration provision is invalid if it is both procedurally and
23
substantively unconscionable.” Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychare Serv., Inc., 24 Cal. 4th
24
83, 114-15 (2000). Courts apply a sliding scale when analyzing these two factors, but “both
25
must be present in order for a court to exercise its discretion to refuse to enforce a contract or
26
clause under the doctrine of unconscionability.” Grabowski v. Robinson, 817 F. Supp. 2d 1159,
27
1171 (S.D. Cal. 2011) (quotation omitted). “The party opposing arbitration has the burden of
28
proving the arbitration provision is unconscionable.” Id. (quotation omitted).
3
1
1.
The Franchise Agreements Are Minimally Procedurally Unconscionable.
2
Procedural unconscionability “concerns the manner in which the contract was negotiated
3
and the circumstances of the parties at that time. The element focuses on oppression or
4
surprise.” Gatton v. T-Mobile, USA, Inc., 152 Cal. App. 4th 571, 581 (2007) (quotations
5
omitted). “Oppression arises from an inequality of bargaining power that results in no real
6
negotiation and an absence of meaningful choice.” Id. (quotations omitted). “Surprise is
7
defined as the extent to which the supposedly agreed-upon terms of the bargain are hidden in
8
the prolix printed form drafted by the party seeking to enforce the disputed term.” Id.
9
(quotations omitted).
Plaintiffs argue that the dispute resolution provisions of the franchise agreements are
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
procedurally unconscionable because they are the product of both oppression and surprise.
12
With respect to oppression, Plaintiffs contend that, due to Defendants’ superior bargaining
13
power, Plaintiffs had no opportunity to negotiate the terms of the agreements, and no
14
meaningful choice about whether to accept them. With respect to surprise, Plaintiffs argue that
15
the dispute resolution provisions were buried within lengthy contracts Plaintiffs did not
16
understand, and that Defendants failed to give Plaintiffs the statutorily required fourteen days to
17
review them before signing.
In response, Defendants contend that the dispute resolution provisions were clearly
18
19
labeled, with bolded, capitalized section headings that should have alerted Plaintiffs to their
20
existence. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs were given the opportunity to review the
21
agreements,2 and that they were encouraged to consult with a lawyer before signing. Moreover,
22
Defendants contend that Plaintiffs each represented in their respective franchise agreements that
23
they were capable of doing business in English, and that doing so was not a undue burden on
24
them.
25
26
27
28
2
There is a dispute regarding whether Plaintiffs were in fact given fourteen days to
review the franchise agreements. However, Plaintiffs admit that they each at least had
several days in which to review their agreements before deciding whether to sign. (Estrada
Decl. ¶¶ 4-5; Jacobo Decl. ¶¶ 4, 6; Carrazco Decl. ¶¶ 4, 6.)
4
1
Given the characteristics of these franchise agreements, and the circumstances under
2
which they were signed, the Court is not persuaded that there was any more than a minimal
3
amount of procedural unconscionability in the signing of the franchise agreements. See
4
Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1284 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting that evidence that
5
defendant had “overwhelming bargaining power, drafted the contract, and presented it to
6
[plaintiff] on a take-it-or-leave-it basis” amounted to only minimal evidence of procedural
7
unconscionability).
8
2.
9
Unlike procedural unconscionability, which focuses on the manner in which agreement
The Franchise Agreements Are Not Substantively Unconscionable.
to a disputed term was sought or obtained, substantive unconscionability relates to the actual
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
terms of the arbitration agreement and whether those terms are “overly harsh” or “generate one-
12
sided results.” Id. at 1281 (internal quotation marks omitted). “The paramount consideration in
13
assessing conscionability is mutuality.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, to avoid
14
substantive unconscionability, an agreement must possess a “modicum of bilaterality.”
15
Armendariz, 24 Cal. 4th at 117.
16
Plaintiffs argue that the dispute resolution provisions of the franchise agreements are
17
substantively unconscionable because they are overly harsh, and because they sanction one-
18
sided results. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that the dispute resolution provisions create
19
procedural hurdles,3 shorten limitations periods, limit damages, prohibit recovery of fees, and
20
impose substantial costs related to mediation and arbitration, all of which favors Defendants.
21
The Court finds that the dispute resolution provisions are not substantively
22
unconscionable. Plaintiffs argue that the agreements impermissibly shorten the limitations
23
period to 180 days when they state that, if negotiations fail, the dissatisfied party must submit
24
the dispute to mediation or arbitration within 180 days. Defendants counter that they do not
25
agree that this statement shortens the limitations period, and that, should the Court determine
26
that it does, it is severable. The Court agrees that this statement is ambiguous, however, in an
27
Plaintiffs refer in passing to “procedural hurdles,” but fail to explain precisely what
they mean by this phrase. Accordingly, the Court does not address any alleged “procedural
hurdles” in assessing the agreements’ substantive unconscionability.
3
28
5
1
abundance of caution the Court SEVERS the requirement that a dispute be submitted to
2
meditation or arbitration within 180 days.
3
With respect to Plaintiffs’ contention that the dispute resolution provisions limit their
4
ability to recover fees and damages, the Court is not persuaded. Indeed, the agreements
5
expressly provide that any “arbitrator shall have the power to enter an award . . . protecting its
6
rights to the same extent a court could do . . . .” (See FAC Ex. A.) The Court further finds that
7
the waiver of punitive damages is not so egregious as to render the dispute resolution provisions
8
substantively unconscionable. To the extent Plaintiffs take issue with portions of the
9
agreements potentially bearing on recovery, but not contained in the dispute resolution
provisions themselves, these are matters for the arbitrator to decide. See Kairy v. Supershuttle
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Int’l, Inc., 2012 WL 4343220, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2012).
12
Finally, the Court is also not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ arguments that arbitration would
13
present an undue financial burden on them. Plaintiffs contend that the dispute resolution
14
provisions’ fee-splitting requirement is unconscionable because Plaintiffs cannot afford to split
15
the cost of arbitration. However, Plaintiffs fail to provide the Court sufficient information from
16
which the Court could draw a valid conclusion regarding Plaintiffs’ ability to split costs. Nor
17
do Plaintiffs provide the Court with an estimate of the costs they might face should arbitration
18
move forward. Based on this dearth of information, the Court cannot conclude that the mere
19
speculative risk that arbitration might impose a financial burden on Plaintiffs justifies
20
invalidating the dispute resolution provisions. See Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Alabama v.
21
Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 81 (2000) (holding that “a party seeking to invalidate an arbitration
22
agreement on the ground that arbitration would be prohibitively expensive bears the burden of
23
showing the likelihood of incurring such costs”).
24
The Court further notes that the dispute resolution provisions provide that small disputes
25
may be settled in a local dispute resolution office, in an effort to minimize costs, and that
26
Defendants have repeatedly stated that they are willing to pay 100% of the costs of any AAA
27
mediation. For the above-stated reasons, the Court concludes that the dispute resolution
28
provisions are not substantively unconscionable.
6
1
The Court has found that the dispute resolution provisions are minimally procedurally
2
unconscionable, but are not substantively unconscionable. Accordingly, the Court must enforce
3
the dispute resolution provisions, and the parties are ORDERED to resolve their disputes in
4
accordance with these provisions.
5
C.
6
Plaintiffs Must Arbitrate On An Individual Basis.
Plaintiffs concede that, should they be required to arbitrate, the dispute resolution
7
provisions’ class action waivers bar them from pursuing representative actions related to their
8
franchise investment law, contract, and tort claims. (Opp’n at 12 n.7.) However, Plaintiffs
9
argue that their PAGA claims should still be permitted to proceed on a representative basis.
PAGA permits individuals to bring representative claims for an employer’s violation of
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
the California Labor Code. Cal. Lab. Code. §§ 2699 et seq. Those individuals are essentially
12
deputized as private attorneys general, and are permitted to seek penalties for violations “that
13
could otherwise only be assessed by California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency.”
14
Cunningham v. Leslie’s Poolmart, Inc., 2013 WL 3233211, at *5 (C.D. Cal. June 25, 2013).
15
Numerous courts within the Ninth Circuit have held that class action waivers that extend
16
to representative PAGA actions are permissible. See, e.g., Miguel v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,
17
N.A., 2013 WL 452418, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2013); Morvant v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro,
18
Inc., 870 F. Supp. 2d 831, 845-46 (N.D. Cal. 2012); Quevedo v. Macy’s, Inc., 798 F. Supp. 2d
19
1122, 1140-42 (C.D. Cal. 2011); Grabowski v. Robinson, 817 F. Supp. 2d 1159, 1181 (S.D. Cal.
20
2011). The California Supreme Court, however, has held that, as a matter of California law, an
21
employee’s right to bring a representative PAGA action cannot be waived. Iskanian v. CLS
22
Transp. L.A., LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348, 383-84 (2014). However, the California Supreme Court
23
noted that this rule could be preempted if it conflicted with the FAA’s objectives. Id. at 384. In
24
upholding class action waivers, the United States Supreme Court has “made clear that any
25
state-law rule standing as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the FAA’s objectives of
26
enforcing arbitration agreements according to their terms to allow for efficient procedures
27
tailored to the specific dispute was preempted.” Fardig v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., 2014 WL
28
4782618, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2014). The district courts within the Ninth Circuit that have
7
1
upheld the waiver of representative PAGA claims have done so on the basis that permitting
2
them to go forward when they have been waived in an arbitration agreement “would slow the
3
dispute resolution process, in opposition to the FAA’s goals.” Id. (collecting cases).
4
The Court is persuaded that the reasoning employed by these other district courts is
5
correct, and that permitting Plaintiffs’ representative PAGA claims to go forward would
6
contravene the FAA’s purpose. The California Supreme Court’s holding in Iskanian
7
notwithstanding, this Court is bound to examine for itself whether PAGA waivers are
8
permissible. The Court finds that the provision prohibiting Plaintiffs from proceeding on a
9
representative basis extends to representative PAGA claims. To the extent the Iskanian holding
would frustrate the FAA’s goals, the Court finds that it is preempted. See Fardig, 2014 WL
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
4782618, at *4 (“Even in light of Iskanian, the Court continues to hold that the rule making
12
PAGA claim waivers unenforceable is preempted by the FAA.”). Plaintiffs may arbitrate their
13
PAGA claims as individuals or, to the extent California law permits, as state agents, provided
14
their relief is limited to that which they could obtain as individuals.
15
D.
16
Standing.
The Court has concluded that Plaintiffs must arbitrate their claims on a solely individual
17
basis. The only question remaining is which Defendants must join Plaintiffs in arbitration.
18
Defendants contend that Plaintiffs only have standing to sue those Defendants with whom they
19
had direct contact.
20
The franchise agreements at issue here contain broad dispute resolution provisions
21
which state that all disputes arising between the parties must be decided through mediation or
22
arbitration. The Court finds that the question of which Defendants Plaintiffs may sue is a
23
question that should properly be decided by the mediator or arbitrator. Accordingly, the Court
24
declines to rule on the issue of standing at this time.
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
8
1
2
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to compel
3
arbitration. Plaintiffs shall attempt to resolve their disputes, on a solely individual basis, in
4
accordance with the franchise agreements that they signed. The Court further ORDERS the
5
proceedings STAYED pending arbitration.
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
Dated: February 24, 2015
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?