`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00441-RSM-MLP Document 31 Filed 06/17/22 Page 1 of 23
`
`THE HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
`THE HONORABLE MICHELLE L. PETERSON
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
` Case No.: 2:22-cv-00441-RSM-MLP
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
`ARBITRATION
`
`NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
`August 5, 2022
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
`
`
`
`FLI-LO FALCON, LLC, STEEL CITY
`EAGLES, CORP., and STELVIO
`TRANSPORT LLC on behalf of themselves
`and all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON
`LOGISTICS, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00441-RSM-MLP
`
`
`
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00441-RSM-MLP Document 31 Filed 06/17/22 Page 2 of 23
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PAGE
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1
`
`BACKGROUND .....................................................................................................1
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................4
`
`A.
`
`The Agreement Contains A Valid Agreement To Arbitrate. .......................5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`The Agreement Is Enforceable Under The FAA. ............................5
`
`The FAA Exemption For Transportation Workers Is
`Inapplicable. .....................................................................................7
`
`The Agreement Is Also Enforceable Under Washington
`Law. .................................................................................................8
`
`The Agreement Is Not Illusory. .....................................................11
`
`Fraudulent Inducement Does Not Invalidate The
`Arbitration Agreement. ..................................................................12
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The Agreement Delegates Threshold Questions Of Arbitrability To
`The Arbitrator. ...........................................................................................13
`
`Even If The Court Were To Decide Arbitrability, Plaintiffs’ Claims
`Are Covered By The Arbitration Agreement. ............................................13
`
`Plaintiffs Are Estopped From Avoiding Arbitration With
`Amazon.com. .............................................................................................16
`
`IV.
`
`THE ACTION MUST BE DISMISSED OR STAYED SO THAT THE
`DISPUTE MAY PROCEED TO ARBITRATION. ..............................................17
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00441-RSM-MLP
`
`
`- i -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00441-RSM-MLP Document 31 Filed 06/17/22 Page 3 of 23
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`
`CASES
`Adams v. Parts Distribution Xpress, Inc.,
`No. 2:20-cv-00697-JMG, 2021 WL 1088231 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 22, 2021) ...................................9
`Akrami v. ABC Phones of N. Carolina, Inc.,
`No. 2:19-cv-02547-JLS-JDE, 2019 WL 6998776 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2019) ........................10
`Alaska Protein Recovery, LLC v. Puretek Corp.,
`No. C13-1429, 2014 WL 2011235 (W.D. Wash. May 16, 2014) ............................................15
`Allison v. Medicab Int’l, Inc.,
`92 Wn.2d 199 (1979) ...............................................................................................................15
`Amos v. Amazon Logistics, Inc.,
`No. 1:22-CV-55, Memorandum Opinion and Order (M.D. N.C. June 16,
`2022) ............................................................................................................................1, 2, 9, 11
`AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion,
`563 U.S. 333 (2011) .............................................................................................................5, 10
`AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc’n Workers of Am.,
`475 U.S. 643 (1986) .................................................................................................................14
`Bldg. Materials and Const. Teamsters Local No. 216 v. Granite Rock Co.,
`851 F.2d 1190 (9th Cir. 1988) .................................................................................................15
`Brennan v. Opus Bank,
`796 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2015) ...............................................................................................4, 7
`Browning v. 24 Hour Fitness, Inc.,
`No. C05-5732RBL, 2006 WL 151933 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 19, 2006) .......................................11
`Carter v. Rent-A-Ctr., Inc.,
`718 F. App’x 502 (9th Cir. 2017) ............................................................................................10
`Castillo v. Cava Mezze Grill, LLC,
`No. CV 18-7994-MWF, 2018 WL 7501263 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2018) .................................10
`Chastain v. Union Sec. Life Ins. Co.,
`502 F. Supp. 2d 1072 (C.D. Cal. 2007) ...................................................................................16
`Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Systems, Inc.,
`207 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) ...................................................................................................4
`CixxFive Concepts, LLC v. Getty Images, Inc.,
`No. C19-386-RSL, 2020 WL 3798926 (W.D. Wash. July 7, 2020) ........................................15
`D.V.C. Trucking, Inc. v. RMX Global Logistics, Inc.,
`No. Civ. A 05-CV-00705, 2005 WL 2044848 (D. Colo. Aug. 24, 2005) .................................8
`David Terry Invs., LLC-PRC v. Headwaters Dev. Grp. LLC,
`13 Wn. App. 2d 159, 168-69 (2020) ..................................................................................14, 17
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`- ii -
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00441-RSM-MLP
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00441-RSM-MLP Document 31 Filed 06/17/22 Page 4 of 23
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(CONTINUED)
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`
`CASES
`Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd,
`470 U.S. 213 (1985) ...................................................................................................................6
`Ekin v. Amazon Servs.,
`LLC, No. C14-0244-JCC, 2015 WL 11233144 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 10, 2015) ........................11
`First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan,
`514 U.S. 938 (1995) ...................................................................................................................6
`Fisher Props., Inc. v. Arden-Mayfair, Inc.,
`106 Wn.2d 826 (1986) ...............................................................................................................6
`Grigson v. Creative Artists Agency L.L.C.,
`210 F.3d 524 (5th Cir. 2000) .............................................................................................16, 17
`Harper v. Amazon.com Servs., Inc.,
`12 F.4th 287 (3d Cir. 2021) .......................................................................................................9
`Hearst Commc’ns, Inc. v. Seattle Times Co.,
`154 Wn.2d 493 (2005) ...............................................................................................................6
`Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer and White Sales, Inc.,
`139 S. Ct. 524 (2019) ...............................................................................................................13
`Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.,
`537 U.S. 79 (2002) .....................................................................................................................4
`In re Jean F. Gardner Amended Blind Trust,
`117 Wn. App. 235, 70 P.3d 168 (2003) ...................................................................................14
`In re Marriage of Pascale,
`173 Wn. App. 836 (2013) ..........................................................................................................9
`JC Aviation Invests., LLC v. Hytech Power, LLC,
`No. 81539-3-I, 2021 WL 778043 (Wn. App. Div. I, Mar. 1, 2021) ........................................14
`Knudtson v. AT&T, Inc.,
`No. C09-837RSM, 2010 WL 11682487 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 1, 2010) .....................................10
`McKee v. AT & T Corp.,
`164 Wn.2d 372 (2008) .............................................................................................................10
`Mendez v. Palm Harbor Homes, Inc.,
`111 Wn. App. 446 (2002) ..................................................................................................14, 15
`Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.,
`473 U.S. 614 (1985) .............................................................................................................6, 14
`Mortensen v. Bresnan Commc’ns LLC,
`722 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2013) ...................................................................................................5
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`- iii -
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00441-RSM-MLP
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00441-RSM-MLP Document 31 Filed 06/17/22 Page 5 of 23
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(CONTINUED)
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`
`CASES
`Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp.,
`460 U.S. 1 (1983) .......................................................................................................................5
`Mundi v. Union Sec. Life Ins. Co.,
`555 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) ...................................................................................................6
`Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc.,
`469 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................12
`New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira,
`139 S. Ct. 532 (2019) .................................................................................................................8
`Norcia v. Samsung Telecomm. Am.,
`LLC, 845 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. 2017) ..........................................................................................6
`Oracle Am., Inc. v. Myriad Grp. A.G.,
`724 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................13
`Palcko v. Airborne Express, Inc.,
`372 F.3d 588 (3d Cir. 2004).......................................................................................................9
`Perry v. Thomas,
`482 U.S. 483 (1987) ...................................................................................................................5
`Peters v. Amazon Services, LLC,
`2 F. Supp. 3d 1165 (W.D. Wash. 2013) .................................................................................6, 7
`Pinkis v. Network Cinema Corp.,
`9 Wn. App. 337 (1973) ......................................................................................................12, 15
`Precision Husky Corp. v. Mountain Equip., Inc.,
`No. 53054-2-I, 2004 WL 2699920 (Wn. App. Div. I, Nov. 29, 2004) ....................................14
`Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.,
`388 U.S. 395 (1967) ...........................................................................................................12, 15
`R&C Oilfield Servs., LLC, v. American Wind Transp. Grp., LLC,
`447 F. Supp. 3d 339 (W.D. Pa. 2020) ........................................................................................8
`Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson,
`561 U.S. 63 (2010) .....................................................................................................................4
`Retail Clerks Health & Welfare Tr. Funds v. Shopland Supermkt., Inc.,
`96 Wn.2d 939 (1982) .................................................................................................................6
`Riensche v. Cingular Wireless, LLC,
`No. C06-1325Z, 2006 WL 3827477 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 27, 2006) ...........................................7
`Romero v. Watkins and Shepard Trucking, Inc.,
`No. 20-55768, 2021 WL 3675074 (9th Cir. Aug. 20, 2021) .....................................................9
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`- iv -
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00441-RSM-MLP
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00441-RSM-MLP Document 31 Filed 06/17/22 Page 6 of 23
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(CONTINUED)
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`
`CASES
`Scott v. Cingular Wireless,
`160 Wn.2d 843 (2007) .........................................................................................................9, 10
`Sellman v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms. Inc.,
`No. C21-1105-JCC, 2021 WL 4989448 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 27, 2021) ....................................12
`Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon,
`596 U.S. ___ (2022) (Slip Op. ) .................................................................................................8
`Staley v. Gilead Scis., Inc.,
`No. 19-CV-02573-EMC, 2021 WL 4972628 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2021) ................................16
`State Dep’t of Corr. v. Fluor Daniel, Inc.,
`160 Wn.2d 786 (2007) ...............................................................................................................7
`Three Valleys Mun. Water Dist. v. E.F. Hutton & Co.,
`925 F.2d 1136 (9th Cir. 1991) .................................................................................................12
`Triton Transp., LLC v. Amazon Logistics, Inc.,
`No. 21-cv-41524, Order on Motion to Compel Arbitration (Or. Cir. Mar. 31,
`2022) ......................................................................................................................................1, 9
`Wiseley v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`709 F. App’x 862 (9th Cir. 2017) ............................................................................................11
`Yakima Cty. (W. Valley) Fire Prot. Dist. No. 12 v. City of Yakima,
`122 Wn.2d 371 (1993) ...............................................................................................................6
`STATUTES
`9 U.S.C. § 2 ......................................................................................................................................4
`9 U.S.C. § 3 ....................................................................................................................................17
`9 U.S.C. § 4 ......................................................................................................................................4
`RCW § 7.04A.060........................................................................................................................4, 9
`RCW § 7.04A.070..................................................................................................................4, 9, 17
`Washington Consumer Protection Act .................................................................................3, 14, 15
`Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act .....................................................................3, 15
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`American Arbitration Association, Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation
`Procedures (2013) ....................................................................................................................13
`
`MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00441-RSM-MLP
`
`
`- v -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00441-RSM-MLP Document 31 Filed 06/17/22 Page 7 of 23
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Under well-settled law, this case is subject to arbitration, not litigation in this Court.
`Each of the Plaintiffs entered into a Delivery Service Partner Program Agreement (“Agreement”)
`with Defendant Amazon Logistics, Inc. The Agreement mandates that the parties must resolve
`any disputes arising out of the Agreement through arbitration. Ignoring the Agreement and its
`arbitration requirement, Plaintiffs now seek to pursue a class action lawsuit against Amazon in
`the wrong forum.
`Plaintiffs’ assent to the Agreement and its binding arbitration provision bars this lawsuit.
`The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) requires the Court to dismiss or stay this action until the
`dispute is resolved by an arbitrator. And Washington state law provides a further, independent
`basis for either dismissing or staying this action pending arbitration. Plaintiffs concede that the
`Agreement is valid and enforceable, and in fact invoke and rely on the Agreement to assert
`claims under Washington law and for breach of the Agreement itself and the implied covenant of
`good faith and fair dealing. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs simultaneously try to disavow and defy their
`contractual commitment to arbitrate this dispute. That attempt to avoid arbitration fails. Courts
`have considered the enforceability of the very arbitration clause at issue here and have compelled
`arbitration of the same causes of action. See Buckley Declaration (“Buckley Decl.”) Ex. A
`(Triton Transp., LLC v. Amazon Logistics, Inc., No. 21-cv-41524, Order on Motion to Compel
`Arbitration (Or. Cir. Mar. 31, 2022)), Ex. B (Amos v. Amazon Logistics, Inc., No. 1:22-CV-55,
`Memorandum Opinion and Order (M.D. N.C. June 16, 2022.))
`Amazon respectfully requests that the Court order Plaintiffs to comply with the
`Agreement, compel Plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims individually as they agreed to do, and
`dismiss or stay this action pending the outcome of the arbitration proceeding. Plaintiffs will lose
`nothing in that process, because they can pursue in arbitration the same claims they seek to assert
`in this lawsuit.
`II.
`BACKGROUND
`Amazon is a retailer that offers a wide selection of products, some for sale directly from
`amazon.com and some for sale from millions of third-party sellers. Declaration of Micah
`
`MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00441-RSM-MLP
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00441-RSM-MLP Document 31 Filed 06/17/22 Page 8 of 23
`
`
`
`McCabe in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration (“McCabe Decl.”) ¶ 3.
`Amazon Logistics coordinates the movement and warehousing of products, equipment and
`supplies within Amazon’s own facilities, and coordinates Amazon’s external relationships with
`third parties that provide local delivery services. Id. Through the Delivery Service Partner
`(“DSP”) Program, Amazon Logistics contracts with independently owned businesses like
`Plaintiffs to provide local delivery services in specific geographic areas. Id. ¶¶ 3-4.
`Fli-Lo Falcon, LLC (“Fli-Lo Falcon”) and Steel City Eagles, Corp (“Steel City”) are
`former DSPs operating in Wyoming and Pennsylvania, respectively. Amended Complaint
`(“Compl.”) ¶¶ 15-16. Fli-Lo Falcon entered the Agreement on October 25, 2019. Id.; McCabe
`Decl. ¶ 5. Steel City entered the Agreement on May 13, 2019. Id. ¶ 6.
`Stelvio Transport LLC (“Stelvio”) is a current DSP operating in California. Compl. ¶ 17.
`Stelvio first contracted with Amazon to deliver packages as part of Amazon’s DSP 1.0 Program
`(the predecessor to the current DSP 2.0 Program) in 2017. Id. ¶¶ 17, 27. Stelvio joined the DSP
`2.0 Program by executing the Agreement on July 27, 2018. McCabe Decl. ¶ 7.
`When DSPs, including the Plaintiffs, join the DSP 2.0 Program, they review and execute
`the Agreement, which defines the parties’ respective rights and obligations under the Program.
`McCabe Decl. ¶¶ 4-9; Ex. A (Agreement between Fli-Lo Falcon and Amazon Logistics), Ex. B
`(Agreement between Steel City and Amazon Logistics, and Stelvio and Amazon Logistics). Fli-
`Lo Falcon, Steel City, and Stelvio were provided a copy of the Agreement for their review prior
`to execution. See id. ¶¶ 4, 7.
`The Agreement includes a broad, unequivocal arbitration clause that requires the parties
`to arbitrate all disputes arising out of the Agreement:
`
`This Agreement is governed by the United States Federal Arbitration Act,
`applicable United States federal law, and Washington state law, without reference
`to any applicable conflict of laws rules. ANY DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF
`THIS AGREEMENT WILL BE RESOLVED BY BINDING ARBITRATION,
`RATHER THAN IN COURT. There is no judge or jury in arbitration, and court
`review of an arbitration award is limited. However, an arbitrator can award on an
`individual basis the same damages and relief as a court (including injunctive and
`declaratory relief or statutory damages), and must follow the terms of this
`Agreement as a court would.
`
`MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00441-RSM-MLP
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00441-RSM-MLP Document 31 Filed 06/17/22 Page 9 of 23
`
`
`
`McCabe Decl. Ex. A § 13, Ex. B § 13 (emphasis in original)
`The Agreement also requires the parties arbitrate all disputes before the AAA, under the
`AAA rules:
`
`The arbitration will be conducted by the American Arbitration Association
`(the “AAA”) under its rules, including the AAA’s Commercial Arbitration
`Rules. … YOUR COMPANY AND AMAZON EACH AGREE THAT ANY
`DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEEDINGS WILL BE CONDUCTED ONLY
`ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS AND NOT IN A CLASS, CONSOLIDATED, OR
`REPRESENTATIVE ACTION. If for any reason a claim proceeds in court rather
`than in arbitration, your company and Amazon each waive any right to a jury trial.
`
`Id. (capitalization in original; bold added).
`On March 31, 2021, Amazon’s Agreement with Fli-Lo Falcon expired by its terms and
`Amazon chose not to renew it, as it had an absolute right to do. McCabe Decl. ¶ 11, Ex. A
`§§ 1(a); 6(a). On April 5, 2022, in defiance of its contractual obligation to arbitrate, Fli-Lo
`Falcon filed this lawsuit. On April 12, 2022, Amazon terminated the Agreement with Steel City
`following its repeated material breaches of the Agreement. McCabe Decl. ¶ 12. On May 20,
`2022, Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint, and Steel City and Stelvio joined as Plaintiffs in
`the action.
`The Amended Complaint purports to assert, on behalf of a nationwide class, claims for
`(1) breach of the Agreement; (2) fraud arising from representations in the DSP Program
`marketing materials and the Agreement; (3) fraudulent inducement; (4) breach of the implied
`covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the Agreement; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) violation of
`the Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”) and the Washington Franchise Investment
`Protection Act (“FIPA”), contending that the DSP Program and the Agreement created a
`franchise; (7) injunctive relief; and (8) declaratory relief. Compl. ¶¶ 145-99.
`There can be no genuine dispute that these claims directly arise out of the parties’ rights
`and obligations under the Agreement. There would be no relationship between Plaintiffs and
`Amazon, and there could be no dispute between them, but for the Agreement. Indeed, Plaintiffs
`acknowledge that their claims arise out of the Agreement. See, e.g., Compl. ¶ 10 (“Pursuant to
`the DSP Agreement, the Parties have consented to the application of Washington law.”); ¶ 136
`
`MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00441-RSM-MLP
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00441-RSM-MLP Document 31 Filed 06/17/22 Page 10 of 23
`
`
`
`(“Plaintiffs and the members of the Class sustained damages due to Defendants’ violations of
`law alleged herein, which arise out of Defendants’ common course of conduct in connection
`with a standard, common DSP Agreement, and standard, common marketing materials”)
`(emphasis added).
`III. ARGUMENT
`The Agreement specifies that it is governed by the FAA and Washington state law.
`McCabe Decl. Ex. A § 13, Ex. B § 13. Under the FAA and Washington law, written agreements
`to arbitrate are “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in
`equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2; see RCW § 7.04A.060. A party faced
`with a refusal or failure to arbitrate as required under a written agreement may petition the court
`for an order compelling arbitration. 9 U.S.C. § 4; RCW § 7.04A.070. The FAA requires courts
`to compel arbitration “in accordance with the terms of the agreement” upon such motion of
`either party, consistent with the principle that arbitration is a matter of contract. 9 U.S.C. § 4.
`Washington law similarly requires a court to order the parties to arbitrate once the court finds
`that there is an enforceable agreement to arbitrate. RCW § 7.04A.070.
`In determining whether to compel arbitration, normally only two “gateway” issues need
`to be evaluated: (1) whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties; and
`(2) whether the agreement covers the dispute. Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S.
`79, 83-85 (2002); Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Systems, Inc., 207 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir.
`2000). But when the parties have clearly and unmistakably delegated questions regarding
`arbitrability to the arbitrator, the Court need not reach the second inquiry. See Rent-A-Ctr., W.,
`Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 68-70 (2010); Brennan v. Opus Bank, 796 F.3d 1125, 1130 (9th Cir.
`2015). Importantly, under Ninth Circuit law, “incorporation of the AAA rules constitutes clear
`and unmistakable evidence that contracting parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability.” Brennan,
`796 F.3d at 1130.
`As addressed below, Plaintiffs and Amazon plainly entered into valid agreements to
`arbitrate. By invoking and incorporating the AAA and its rules, the parties’ agreements also
`clearly and unmistakably delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. That ends the
`
`MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00441-RSM-MLP
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00441-RSM-MLP Document 31 Filed 06/17/22 Page 11 of 23
`
`
`
`inquiry here; if Plaintiffs intend to challenge whether their claims or this dispute are subject to
`the arbitration clause, they must do so before the arbitrator. But even if, contrary to Ninth
`Circuit law, the Court were to consider that issue, Plaintiffs’ claims fall squarely within the scope
`of the arbitration clause.
`A.
`The Agreement Contains A Valid Agreement To Arbitrate.
`Plaintiffs had clear notice of and expressly agreed to the arbitration provisions in the
`Agreement, which are governed by “the United States Federal Arbitration Act, applicable United
`States federal law, and Washington state law.” See McCabe Decl. Ex. A § 13, Ex. B § 13.
`Plaintiffs do not dispute, but in fact admit, the existence of a valid contract. See, e.g., Compl.
`¶ 17 (“[the] 2.0 DSP Agreement … currently governs the Parties’ relationship today”); ¶ 32
`(“Whitfield, Wiles and Omar each executed a DSP Agreement on behalf of their companies with
`ALI …”). Both the FAA and Washington law strongly favor arbitration where, as here, there is
`evidence of assent to a valid agreement. And both federal law and Washington law
`independently compel enforcement of the parties’ arbitration agreement.
`1.
`The Agreement Is Enforceable Under The FAA.
`Pursuant to the Agreement’s express terms, the FAA governs the Agreement, including
`the arbitration provisions. McCabe Decl. Ex. A § 13, Ex. B § 13. As the U.S. Supreme Court
`has affirmed, the FAA declares a liberal policy favoring enforcement of arbitration provisions.
`See e.g., Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983).
`Accordingly, written agreements to arbitrate disputes “shall be valid, irrevocable, and
`enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any
`contract.” AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 339 (2011) (citing 9 U.S.C. § 2).
`But the FAA does not simply place arbitration agreements on equal footing with other contracts;
`instead, it “favor[s] arbitration agreements.” Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483, 489 (1987)
`(emphasis added); see also, e.g., Mortensen v. Bresnan Commc’ns LLC, 722 F.3d 1151, 1160
`(9th Cir. 2013) (“[T]he FAA’s purpose is to give preference (instead of mere equality) to
`arbitration provisions.”).
`
`MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00441-RSM-MLP
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00441-RSM-MLP Document 31 Filed 06/17/22 Page 12 of 23
`
`
`
`The party seeking to compel arbitration “bears the burden of proving the existence of an
`agreement to arbitrate by a preponderance of the evidence.” Norcia v. Samsung Telecomm. Am.,
`LLC, 845 F.3d 1279, 1283 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). If an
`agreement exists, the FAA “leaves no place for the exercise of discretion by a district court, but
`instead mandates that district courts shall direct the parties to proceed to arbitration.” Dean
`Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 218 (1985) (emphasis in original). “[A]ny doubts
`concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration, whether the
`problem at hand is the construction of the contract language itself or an allegation of waiver,
`delay, or a like defense to arbitrability.” Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth,
`Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 626 (1985).
`Courts apply state-law principles of contract formation to determine whether parties
`assented to an agreement to arbitrate. See First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S.
`938, 944 (1995); Norcia, 845 F.3d at 1283. Thus, the Court should determine the validity of the
`arbitration agreement under “general state-law principles of contract interpretation, while giving
`due regard to the federal policy in favor of arbitration.” Mundi v. Union Sec. Life Ins. Co., 555
`F.3d 1042, 1044 (9th Cir. 2009). In Washington, “[t]he role of the court is to determine the
`mutual intentions of the contracting parties according to the reasonable meaning of their words
`and acts.” Fisher Props., Inc. v. Arden-Mayfair, Inc., 106 Wn.2d 826, 837 (1986). Thus, the
`court must attempt to ascertain the intent of the parties based on objective manifestations of the
`agreement and the reasonable meaning of the words used in the contract. Hearst Commc’ns, Inc.
`v. Seattle Times Co., 154 Wn.2d 493, 503 (2005).
`“The proponent of a contract need only prove the existence of the contract and the other
`party’s objective manifestation of intent to be bound thereby; the unexpressed subjective intent
`of either party is irrelevant.” Retail Clerks Health & Welfare Tr. Funds v. Shopland Supermkt.,
`Inc., 96 Wn.2d 939, 944 (1982). A party’s signature is evidence that the party intended to be
`bound. See Yakima Cty. (W. Valley) Fire Prot. Dist. No. 12 v. City of Yakima, 122 Wn.2d 371,
`389 (1993). Contracts formed online, where a party agrees to the contract terms through the
`click of a button, are enforceable like any other contract. See e.g., Peters v. Amazon Services,
`
`MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00441-RSM-MLP
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00441-RSM-MLP Document 31 Filed 06/17/22 Page 13 of 23
`
`
`
`LLC, 2 F. Supp. 3d 1165, 1170 (W.D. Wash. 2013); Riensche v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, No.
`C06-1325Z, 2006 WL 3827477, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 27, 2006) (compelling arbitration
`where the plaintiff “was required to agree to the Terms online”). “In interpreting an arbitration
`clause, the intentions of the parties as expressed in the agreement controls, but ‘those intentions
`are generously construed as to issues of arbitrability.’” Peters, 2 F. Supp. 3d at 1170 (quoting
`W.A. Botting Plumbing and Heating Co. v. Constructors-Pamco, 47 Wn. App. 681, 684 (1987)).
`