GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge.
Defendant Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. ("Toshiba") moves in this putative class action for an order compelling "[P]laintiff to arbitrate his claim against T[oshiba]." (Mem. P. & A. in Supp. Mot. to Compel Arbitration ("Toshiba's Mot.") 1:3-4, ECF No. 74-1.) Plaintiff opposes the motion.
The following uncontroverted facts are germane to the motion. Contained within the box for the Toshiba laptop Plaintiff purchased at a Best Buy store was an arbitration provision, which prescribes:
(Decl. of Don Hanson Ex. A, One (1) Year Standard Limited Warranty for Computers ("Arbitration Provision") A7, A9, ECF No. 74-3.)
Additionally, "[i]nside the box . . . the actual . . . laptop would have been completely enclosed in a plastic bag . . . sealed with a sticker," (Decl. of Don Hanson ¶ 4, ECF No. 74-2), informing Plaintiff of the referenced arbitration provision and prescribing:
(Decl. of Don Hanson Ex. B, ECF No. 74-4.)
Toshiba argues: "Plaintiff should be compelled to arbitrate his claim against [it since] Plaintiff accepted the terms of . . . a prominently disclosed arbitration provision." (Toshiba's Mot. 1:2-4.) Toshiba contends: "That provision binds the parties to arbitrate on an individual basis any disputes relating to the use of [P]laintiff's laptop." (
Plaintiff counters with arguments: 1) "no agreement to arbitrate was formed between Plaintiff and T[oshiba]"; 2) "the arbitration [provision] is unconscionable, and thus unenforceable"; and 3) "T[oshiba] has waived its right to compel arbitration." (Pl.'s Opp'n 9:9-11, ECF No. 78.)
Plaintiff argues: "T[oshiba] has failed to show that. . . the arbitration [provision]," which Plaintiff did not encounter until after purchase, "w[as] accepted and assented to by Plaintiff." (Pl.'s Opp'n 19:22-23.)
"[C]ontracts contained in [] boxes . . . are no less enforceable than any other type of contract."
Plaintiff also argues that case law supporting acceptance of contracts within the boxes of consumer products via product use is inapposite since "in order to avoid being bound by the terms of the [arbitration provision], Plaintiff was required to return the [l]aptop to Best Buy pursuant to Best Buy's return policy as it then existed," which would have subjected Plaintiff to a "restocking fee of fifteen percent," i.e. "a monetary loss of approximately $84" based on Plaintiff's purchase price of $559.74. (
Plaintiff argues the arbitration provision is "unconscionable and unenforceable as a matter of law." (Pl.'s Opp'n 35:14.) Toshiba counters, inter alia, that "[t]he arbitration [provision] at issue here contains a delegation [clause] that requires" this unconscionability challenge "to be decided by the arbitrator, not the Court." (Toshiba's Reply 2:10-11, ECF No. 82 (quoting Arbitration Provision A7).)
The referenced arbitration provision states:
(Arbitration Provision A7 (underlined emphasis added).)
"Parties can agree to arbitrate `gateway' questions of `arbitrability,'" such as whether an arbitration provision is unconscionable.
However, Plaintiff contends "T[oshiba] has waived its right to compel arbitration." (Pl.'s Opp'n 9:9.)
"Any examination of whether the right to compel arbitration has been waived must be conducted in light of the strong federal policy favoring enforcement of arbitration agreements."
Plaintiff argues compelling arbitration would prejudice him since he "expended substantial resources, time, and effort litigating this action"; he "would have utilized a different strategy had he known that the case would or might proceed to arbitration"; and, in arbitration, "T[oshiba] [would] now [be] allowed to evade the Court's decisions [rejecting Toshiba's motions to dismiss Plaintiff's claims as a matter of law] and seek a `second bite at the apple.'" (Pl.'s Opp'n 16:17-18, 16:14-15, 17:9-11.)
Plaintiff's prejudice arguments stemming from litigation strategy choices, the potential for Toshiba to relitigate issues addressed in previous dismissal orders, or attempt to forum shop are conclusory and therefore unpersuasive. Here, Plaintiff has not shown that "the possibility that there may be some duplication from [an arbitration] proceeding[] is prejudicial to [him]."
For the stated reasons, Toshiba's motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. The action against Toshiba is stayed under 9 U.S.C. § 3 pending arbitration.
A status conference is scheduled to commence at 9:00 a.m. on July 20, 2015. A joint status report shall be filed fourteen (14) days prior to the status conference, in which Plaintiff and Toshiba shall explain the status of the arbitration proceeding if arbitration is ongoing. Further, if arbitration is completed before the status report is due, a notice of completion shall be filed immediately upon determination that arbitration has been completed.