Mulvany v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.
Filing
40
ORDER DENYING 31 MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 12/14/2016.(blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2016)
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
SAN JOSE DIVISION
5
6
DANA MULVANY,
Case No. 15-cv-04371-BLF
Plaintiff,
7
v.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL ARBITRATION
8
9
LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
[Re: ECF 31]
Defendant.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Defendant Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. moves to compel arbitration of Plaintiff Dana
12
13
Mulvany’s claims that Live Nation failed to accommodate her disability when she attended a
14
comedy festival at Live Nation’s venue. Because Live Nation has not submitted a copy of the
15
arbitration agreement or any evidence that Mulvany agreed to arbitrate her claims, the motion is
16
DENIED.
17
18
I.
BACKGROUND
In August 2014, Mulvany bought two tickets from third party Groupon, Inc. to attend the
19
Oddball Comedy Festival at the Shoreline Amphitheatre in Mountain View, California. First
20
Am’d Compl. (“FAC”) ¶ 12, ECF 26. Immediately after buying the tickets, Mulvany contacted
21
Live Nation, which owns and operates the Shoreline Amphitheatre, to request accommodation for
22
her disability. Id. ¶ 13. Mulvany is deaf in her left ear and has significant hearing loss in her right
23
ear. Id. ¶ 11. Live Nation agreed to provide Communication Access Realtime Translation
24
(“CART”) for the Festival. Id. ¶ 17. Mulvany claims that the CART services provided at the
25
Festival’s main stage were completely inadequate, no CART services were provided at the
26
Festival’s second stage, and no captioning was provided on the video monitors located in the
27
seating and vendor areas. Id. ¶¶ 18-22. As a result, Mulvany and her hearing-impaired guest were
28
not able to enjoy the Festival. Id. ¶¶ 18-25.
1
Mulvany filed this action in the Small Claims Court of the Santa Clara County Superior
2
Court on September 11, 2015, asserting that Live Nation’s conduct violated the Americans with
3
Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”). Small Claims
4
Compl., Exh. A to Notice of Removal, ECF 1. Live Nation removed the action to federal district
5
court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Notice of Removal, ECF 1. Mulvany filed the
6
operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) on May 24, 2016, claiming violations of the ADA,
7
Unruh Act, California’s Disabled Persons Act, and California’s Unfair Competition Law. Live
8
Nation answered the FAC on June 28, 2016 and it filed the present motion to compel arbitration
9
on September 1, 2016.
10
II.
DISCUSSION
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Live Nation moves to compel arbitration of Mulvany’s claims against it based upon an
12
arbitration provision contained Groupon’s Terms of Use. According to Live Nation, Mulvany
13
agreed to the Terms of Use when she created her Groupon account and again when she completed
14
her online ticket purchase through Groupon’s website. Live Nation asserts that the Terms of Use
15
include an arbitration provision which applies not only to disputes between Mulvany and Groupon
16
but also to the present dispute between Mulvany and Live Nation.
17
“[T]he party moving to compel arbitration has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of
18
the evidence, that an agreement to arbitrate exists.” Amaya v. Spark Energy Gas, LLC, No. 15-cv-
19
02326-JSW, 2016 WL 1410755, at *3 (N.D. Cal. April 11, 2016); see also Sanford v.
20
Memberworks, Inc., 483 F.3d 956, 962 (9th Cir. 2007) (“It is axiomatic that arbitration is a matter
21
of contract and a party cannot be required to submit any dispute which he has not agreed so to
22
submit.”) (internal quotation marks, citation, and alteration omitted); Aoki v. Gilbert, No. 11-cv-
23
02797-MCE-CKD, 2013 WL 1156495, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2013) (“Because the existence of
24
an arbitration agreement is a statutory prerequisite to granting a petition to compel arbitration, the
25
party seeking to enforce the agreement bears the burden of proving the agreement exists by a
26
preponderance of the evidence.”).
27
Live Nation has not met this burden, as it has not submitted any evidence that Mulvany
28
agreed to Groupon’s Terms of Use or that said Terms of Use contain an agreement to arbitrate.
2
1
Live Nation attempts to prove the existence of an agreement to arbitrate by asking this Court to
2
take judicial notice of filings in another case, Keena v. Groupon, Inc., which was litigated in the
3
United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. See Def.’s Request for
4
Judicial Notice, ECF 32. Those filings include evidence that the North Carolina plaintiff, Ms.
5
Keena, agreed to Groupon’s Terms of Use in February 2015 and that those Terms of Use included
6
an arbitration agreement. See id. Live Nation requests this Court to infer from the North Carolina
7
documents regarding Ms. Keena’s agreement to Groupon’s Terms of Use in February 2015 that
8
Mulvany agreed to identical terms six months earlier in August 2014.
Live Nation’s request for judicial notice is DENIED. While the Court “may take judicial
9
notice of the existence of unrelated court documents . . . it will not take judicial notice of such
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
documents for the truth of the matter asserted therein.” In re Bare Escentuals, Inc. Sec. Lit., 745
12
F. Supp. 2d 1052, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2010). Moreover, even if the Court could accept the North
13
Carolina filings for the truth of the matters asserted therein, Ms. Keena’s agreement to arbitrate
14
proves nothing with respect to whether Mulvany agreed to arbitrate.
15
III.
ORDER
16
For the reasons discussed above,
17
Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is DENIED.
18
19
20
21
Dated: December 14, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?