Bischoff v. Directv, Inc.
| Decision Date | 14 January 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 00CV09541.,00CV09541. |
| Citation | 180 F.Supp.2d 1097 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
| Parties | Jeff BISCHOFF and Mitchell Guzik, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DIRECTV, INC., et al., Defendants. |
Gary J. Gorham, Randall J. Sunshine, Liner Yankelevitz Sunshine & Regenstreif, Santa Monica, CA, Jeffrey M. Tillotson, Lynn Stodghill Melshimer & Tillotson, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff.
Jeffrey S. Davidson, Melissa D. Ingalls, Marcie Lynn Gardner, Kirkland & Ellis, Los Angeles, CA, Daniel S. Floyd, Steven E. Sletten, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Los Angeles, CA, Elliot S. Kaplan, Christopher W. Madel, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Minneapolis, MN, J. Kevin Snyder, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Los Angeles, CA, Howard Feller, McGuire Woods Battle & Booth, Richmond, VA, Philip E. Smith, Curtis P. Holdsworth, Smith Ellison & Harraka, Irvine, CA, Robert L. Green, Michael J. Pepek, Green & Hall, Orange, CA, for Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND GRANTING MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay of proceedings came on regularly for hearing before this Court on January 14, 2002.1
On November 15, 2000, Defendant DirecTV, Inc. ("DirecTV" or "Defendant") filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Resolution of Duplicative Litigation, or in the Alternative, to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration and to Compel Arbitration ("Motion to Stay").2 On December 22, 2000, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On January 8, 2001, Direct filed a reply.
Supplemental briefing was filed by Plaintiff on March 30, 2001 ("Pls' March 2001 Supp. Brief") and by Defendant on April 13, 2001 ("Def's April 2001 Supp. Brief"). On April 23, 2001, the Court stayed the instant action pending resolution of the action EchoStar, et al. v. DirecTV, et al. On November 9, 2001, DirecTV notified the Court of the resolution of the EchoStar action. The Court lifted the stay on December 10, 2001.
On December 21, 2001, DirecTV filed a supplemental brief in support of their Motion to Stay ("Def's December 2001 Supp. Brief") and on January 7, 2002, Plaintiffs filed their supplemental brief ("Pls' January 2002 Supp. Brief").3
The Court has thoroughly considered the papers presented by the parties and has listened to oral argument by the parties. For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS the Moving Parties' Motion to Compel Arbitration and GRANTS the Moving Parties' Motion for a Stay of Proceedings.
DirecTV provides television programming services via satellite to consumers nationwide. See Motion at 8. To obtain these services, a potential DirecTV customer first purchases from a retailer the equipment necessary to receive a satellite signal. Id. The potential customer then calls DirecTV and becomes a subscriber by electing to receive one or more of DirecTV's numerous programming packages. Id. A "Customer Agreement," which governs the relationship formed between DirecTV and the customer, is then mailed to each customer along with the first billing statement. Id.
DirecTV mailed plaintiff Mitchell Guzik a Customer Agreement after Mr. Guzik began to receive services.4 According to DirecTV, the Customer Agreement, dated October 1999, became binding as soon as Mr. Guzik received DirecTV's programming service. The Customer Agreement states:
The contractual mechanism for dispute resolution is defined in paragraph 8 of the Customer Agreement, entitled "Resolving Disputes." Under paragraph 8(a), either DirecTV or plaintiff must first notify the other of a claim at least 60 days in advance of filing an arbitration demand so the parties may attempt to resolve the claim informally. See Customer Agreement ¶ 8(a). The Customer Agreement defines "claim" as "any legal claim relating to this Agreement, any addendum, or your Service."5 Paragraph 8(b) of the Customer Agreement provides that any claim that cannot be resolved informally must be resolved by binding arbitration:
Except as provided in Section 8(d), if we cannot resolve a Claim informally, any Claim either of us asserts will be resolved only by binding arbitration. The arbitration will be conducted under the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association that are in effect at the time the arbitration is initiated (referred to as the "AAA Rules") and under the rules set forth in this Agreement.
The arbitration clause exempts disputes involving (i) intellectual property rights of the parties or of DirecTV's operating licenses, (ii) illegal rebroadcasting, and (iii) violations of the Communications Act of 1934 or the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Id. ¶ 8(d).
On September 7, 2000, plaintiffs Jeff Bischoff and Mitchell Guzik, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, brought an antitrust action in this Court for damages and declaratory and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and the California Cartwright Act against DirecTV and a number of other defendants. See Cpt. at 1. Plaintiffs alleged that DirecTV, by itself, and by conspiring with its co-defendants, illegally attempted to monopolize the distribution and sale of high-power direct satellite service and equipment. See Cpt. at 2. According to Plaintiffs, DirecTV, which effectively controls more than 70% of the Direct Broadcast Satellite ("DBS") market, has attempted to exploit its dominant market position to exclude competition, force retailers to boycott competitors' products and services, restrain trade, and monopolize the DBS market. Id. Plaintiffs assert that as subscribers and customers of DirecTV, they have been injured as a result of Defendants' anti-competitive actions and competition in the DBS market has been stifled. Id.
Under the Federal Arbitration Act, "upon being satisfied that the making of the agreement for arbitration ... is not in issue, the court shall make an order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the agreement." 9 U.S.C. § 4. Thus, a district court must determine: (1) whether a valid, enforceable arbitration agreement exists and (2) whether the claims asserted in the complaint are within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Id.; Howard Elec. & Mech. Co., Inc. v. Frank Briscoe Co., Inc., 754 F.2d 847, 849 (9th Cir.1985); Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Systems, Inc., 207 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir.2000). "If the making of the arbitration agreement or the failure, neglect, or refusal to perform the same be in issue, the court shall proceed summarily to the trial thereof." 9 U.S.C. § 4.
The scope of an arbitration agreement is governed by federal substantive law. Tracer Research Corp. v. National Environ. Servs. Co., 42 F.3d 1292, 1294 (9th Cir.1994); Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc., 175 F.3d 716, 719 (9th Cir.1999). Moreover, "[t]he Arbitration Act establishes that, as a matter of federal law, any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration." Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Systems, Inc., 207 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir.2000) (citing Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Const., 460 U.S. 1, 24, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983)). Nevertheless, "arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit." Tracer, 42 F.3d at 1294 (quoting United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 1353, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960)). Accordingly, the Court must first determine the breadth of the arbitration clause and then determine if Plaintiff's claims are subject to the arbitration clause. See id. at 1295 (); Simula, 175 F.3d at 720-25 (same).
The general policy in favor of arbitration applies equally to antitrust claims. Nghiem v. NEC Electronic, Inc., 25 F.3d 1437 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1044, 115 S.Ct. 638, 130 L.Ed.2d 544 (1994); Simula, 175 F.3d 716; Kotam Electronics, Inc. v. JBL Consumer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 724 (11th Cir.1996). Similarly, because the Cartwright Act is patterned after the Sherman Act, California courts have held that Cartwright Act claims are arbitrable. Crown Homes, Inc. v. Landes, 22 Cal.App.4th 1273, 27 Cal. Rptr.2d 827 (1994); Wolitarsky v. Blue Cross of California, 53 Cal.App.4th 338, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 629 (1997).
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs should be compelled to arbitrate their pending claims and that the Court should stay the instant action because one of the named plaintiffs, Mitchell Guzik, agreed to arbitrate this type of dispute with DirecTV when he accepted DirecTV's programming services. See Notice of Motion at 1. Plaintiffs assert that they are not required to arbitrate their pending claims because the arbitration clause included in the Customer Agreement is invalid. Plaintiffs further argue that even if the arbitration agreement were found to be valid, it cannot be enforced in the instant matter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. Dell Computer Corp., 99,991.
...805 A.2d 1007, 1009 (D.C.App.2002) [Notice of forum selection clause in click-wrap agreement sufficient.]; Bischoff v. DirecTV, Inc., 180 F.Supp.2d 1097, 1104 (C.D.Cal.2002) [Arbitration clause in customer service agreement which did not involve the sale of goods was valid and enforceable.]......
-
Rogers v. Dell Computer Corp., 99,991.
...805 A.2d 1007, 1009 (D.C.App. 2002) [Notice of forum selection clause in click-wrap agreement sufficient.]; Bischoff v. DirecTV, Inc., 180 F.Supp.2d 1097, 1104 (C.D.Cal.2002) [Arbitration clause in customer service agreement which did not involve the sale of goods was valid and enforceable.......
-
Perez v. Directv Grp. Holdings, LLC, CASE NO. 8:16-cv-1440-JLS-DFMx.
...Inc. cited "practical business realities" in finding the delayed delivery of the DirecTV Customer Agreement permissible. 180 F.Supp.2d 1097, 1105 (C.D. Cal. 2002). Relying on Hill, et al. v. Gateway 2000 , 105 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 1997), the Bischoff court determined that it was "unrealistic......
-
In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation
...The use of pre-printed forms does not convert an otherwise valid contract into an unconscionable contract. See Bischoff v. DirecTV, Inc., 180 F.Supp.2d 1097, 1105 (C.D.Cal.2002); Lloyd v. MBNA America Bank, N.A., No. 00 Civ. 109, 2001 WL 194300, at *4 (D.Del. Feb. 22, 2001). Further, the ar......
-
The Necessity Of Notice: Increasing Emphasis Placed On Providing Customers With Notice Of Modifications To Online Contracts
...of Crawford v. Talk America, Inc., No. 05-CV-0180-DRH, 2005 WL 2465909 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 6, 2005), and Bischoff v. DirecTV, Inc., 180 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (C.D. Cal. 2002). The courts in Crawford and Bischoff held that the customers were subject to the modified contracts because they had received......