`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`AARICKA SWANSON,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`H&R BLOCK, INC., et al,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Case No. 19-00788-CV-W-GAF
`
`ORDER
`
`Now before the Court is Defendants H & R Block, Inc., H & R Block Tax Group, Inc., and
`
`HRB Digital, LLC’s (collectively “H & R Block” or “Defendants”) Motion to Enforce Order and
`
`Compel Arbitration. (Doc. # 41). Plaintiff Aaricka Swanson (“Plaintiff”) opposes. (Docs. # 47).
`
`After due consideration of briefing submitted by the parties, and for good cause shown,
`
`Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`The present lawsuit arises from an alleged scheme perpetrated by H & R Block to deceive
`
`low-income tax-payers who are eligible to receive free tax preparation and filing services under
`
`the United States Internal Revenue Service’s (“IRS”) Free File Program by diverting those
`
`taxpayers to paid tax-filing products. (Doc. # 1 (“Complaint”), ¶ 1)). In connection with the alleged
`
`deception, Plaintiff asserted five claims on behalf of herself, a proposed Nationwide Class, and a
`
`California Subclass alleging violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”)
`
`(Count I), violations of the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) (Count II), violations of
`
`the California False Advertising Law (“FAL”) (Count III), Breach of Contract (Count IV), and
`
`Fraud (Count V). (Id.). (Complaint, ¶ 13). Shortly after the filing the of Plaintiff’s Complaint
`
`
`
`Case 4:19-cv-00788-GAF Document 50 Filed 02/10/21 Page 1 of 3
`
`1
`
`
`
`with this Court, Defendants moved to compel all claims to individual arbitration and stay litigation
`
`of the matter pursuant to the terms of an Arbitration Agreement that was electronically accepted
`
`by Plaintiff as part of a larger container contract (i.e. Online Services Agreement). (Doc. # 18;
`
`Doc. # 40, p. 10).
`
`In an Order issued July 27, 2020, the Court determined the Arbitration Agreement was
`
`enforceable and compelled all five of Plaintiffs claims to individualized arbitration and stayed the
`
`litigation pending completion of that process. (Doc. # 40, pp. 16-17). Plaintiff subsequently
`
`submitted only her fraud claim (Count V) to arbitration, resulting in Defendants’ pending motion
`
`to enforce the Court’s July 27, 2020 Order. (Doc. # 41; Doc. # 42-1, ¶ 49). In opposing the
`
`pending motion, Plaintiff argues submission of all claims is unnecessary because the arbiter could
`
`find that the container contract was induced by fraud, thereby rendering the attendant Arbitration
`
`Agreement unenforceable and terminating the arbiter’s jurisdiction. (Doc. # 47, pp. 1-2).
`
`Plaintiff’s logic is circular.
`
`The Court dedicated several pages of its July 27, 2020 Order to explaining why the
`
`Arbitration Agreement is severable from the container contract and therefore not “saved” from
`
`enforcement under the FAA. (Doc. # 40, pp. 5-9). The Court spent the remainder of the Order
`
`explaining why the Arbitration Agreement is valid and enforceable on its own terms. (Id. at pp.
`
`10-17). These arguments and applicable law have been faithfully restated by Defendants in the
`
`pending motion and ancillary briefing (Docs. ## 41, 42, 48) and the Court sees no reason to belabor
`
`the point by replicating them here. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Enforce is GRANTED.
`
`The Court compels the parties to arbitrate all claims in accordance with the terms of the
`
`Arbitration Agreement and the Court’s July 27, 2020 Order. The stay was lifted for the limited
`
`purpose of ruling this motion. However, the stay shall be reinstated upon entry of this Order. The
`
`
`
`Case 4:19-cv-00788-GAF Document 50 Filed 02/10/21 Page 2 of 3
`
`2
`
`
`
`parties shall file a notice with the Court within ten days of the completion of arbitration. If
`
`arbitration is not completed by July 27, 2021, the parties shall jointly file a status report on that
`
`date setting forth the status of the matter.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Gary A. Fenner
`GARY A. FENNER, JUDGE
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: February 10, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:19-cv-00788-GAF Document 50 Filed 02/10/21 Page 3 of 3
`
`3
`
`