Esquer v. Educ. Mgmt. Corp.
Decision Date | 08 November 2017 |
Docket Number | Case No. 17–cv–01240–BAS–AGS |
Parties | Steven ESQUER, Plaintiff, v. EDUCATION MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, and The Art Institute of California–San Diego, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
Gabriela Margarita Torres, Resolve Legal Solutions, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff.
Jeffrey Kenneth Brown, Payne and Fears, Irvine, CA, for Defendants.
(1) GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION [ECF No. 8];
Pending before the Court is Defendants Education Management Corporation ("EMC") and the Art Institute of California–San Diego's ("AICSD") (together "Defendants") Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration and to Dismiss or Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration. (ECF No. 8–1.) Plaintiff Steven Esquer has opposed the motion (ECF No. 10) and Defendants have responded (ECF No. 11). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendants' motion to compel individual arbitration.
On December 20, 2013, Plaintiff Steven Esquer applied for admission to Defendant AICSD to pursue a B.S. in Graphic and Web Design. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 19, 20). AICSD is an educational institution offering bachelor and associated degrees and is a subsidiary of Defendant Education Management Corporation, a publicly-traded corporation based in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. (Id. ¶¶ 15–16.) At the time he applied to AICSD, Esquer completed several forms, including an Enrollment Agreement. (Id. ¶ 21.)
The first page of the Enrollment Agreement Esquer signed contained the following language under a section titled "Student's Agreement": "I understand that this Agreement becomes a legally binding document after I sign it and it is accepted by The Art Institute of California ..." (ECF No. 8–3, Declaration of Abdo Antun ("Antun Decl."), Ex. 1.) Immediately preceding the student signature line was a provision reading: (Id. ) Page 2 of the Enrollment Agreement contained the following provisions:
The Enrollment Agreement was signed by both Plaintiff and an official of AICSD. (Id. )
Esquer brought suit against AICSD and EMC on June 19, 2017, alleging claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. ; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. ; California's unfair competition law; and state law tort claims. (ECF No. 1.) On June 26, 2017, Defendant AICSD informed Plaintiff in writing of its election to resolve the dispute in arbitration pursuant to the arbitration provisions of the Enrollment Agreement. (ECF No. 8–4 Ex. B.) Defendants EMC and AICSD have moved to compel Esquer to submit his claims in this action to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. (ECF No. 8.) They request that the Court either dismiss the action in its entirety or stay it pending arbitration. (Id. )
The FAA applies to contracts that evidence transactions involving interstate commerce. 9 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2. The FAA provides that contractual arbitration agreements "shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract." Id. § 2. The "primary" purpose of the FAA is to ensure that "private agreements to arbitrate are enforced according to their terms." Volt Info. Scis., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. , 489 U.S. 468, 479, 109 S.Ct. 1248, 103 L.Ed.2d 488 (1989). Therefore, "as a matter of federal law, any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration." Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp. , 460 U.S. 1, 24–25, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983). "[A] district court has little discretion to deny an arbitration motion" once it determines that a claim is covered by a written and enforceable arbitration agreement. Republic of Nicar. v. Standard Fruit Co. , 937 F.2d 469, 475 (9th Cir. 1991). Arbitration agreements, "[l]ike other contracts ... may be invalidated by ‘generally applicable contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability.’ " Rent–A–Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson , 561 U.S. 63, 68, 130 S.Ct. 2772, 177 L.Ed.2d 403 (2010) (quoting Doctor's Assocs., Inc. v. Casarotto , 517 U.S. 681, 687, 116 S.Ct. 1652, 134 L.Ed.2d 902 (1996) ). "In determining whether to compel a party to arbitration, a district court may not review the merits of the dispute[.]" Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc. v. Flynn , No. 14-00372 JMS-RLP, 2014 WL 7076827, at *6 (D. Haw. Dec. 11, 2014). Instead, a district court's determinations are limited to (1) whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and, if so, (2) whether the agreement covers the relevant dispute. See 9 U.S.C. § 4 ; Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc. , 207 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).
In the instant motion, Defendants seek to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration provisions of the Enrollment Agreement. Defendants argue that the question of arbitrability has been delegated to the arbitrator and thus the scope of this Court's review is narrow. Plaintiff argues that the agreement's delegation clause is unenforceable and that, even if it is enforceable, certain claims are outside the scope of the arbitration provisions.
A threshold issue the Court must decide is whether the Enrollment Agreement delegated the arbitrability determination to the arbitrator. The determination of whether an arbitration clause is valid, applicable, and enforceable is reserved to the district court unless "the parties clearly and unmistakably provide[d] otherwise," such as by delegating the issue of arbitrability to arbitration. AT & T Technologies, Inc. v. Commc'ns Workers of Am. , 475 U.S. 643, 649, 106 S.Ct. 1415, 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986). Even if a delegation of arbitrability is clear and unmistakable it may be found unenforceable if the delegation itself is unconscionable. Rent-A-Ctr., 561 U.S. at 71–74, 130 S.Ct. 2772.
Defendants argue that the delegation provision requires that any dispute pertaining to arbitrability must be submitted to the arbitrator. (ECF No. 8–1 at 13.) Defendants argue the parties have shown a clear and unmistakable intent to delegate the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator because (1) the arbitration provision requires the arbitration of "any dispute or claim," (id. ), and (2) the agreement incorporates the JAMS procedural rules, which in turn provide JAMS with the authority to determine jurisdiction and arbitrability. Plaintiff disputes delegation on the grounds that (1) the arbitration agreement does not expressly state that the arbitrator has the power to determine arbitrability and (2) the arbitration agreement merely references the requirement to initiate proceedings with JAMS, not JAMS's procedural rule regarding its jurisdiction over arbitrability.
The delegation clause of the arbitration agreement here states that upon initiation of arbitration JAMS "will serve as the arbitration administrator pursuant to its rules of procedure. " (Id. at 2 (emphasis added).) There appears to be a dispute between the parties as to which JAMS rules of procedures apply. Whereas Defendants point to Rule 8(b) of the JAMS Streamlined Arbitration Rules & Procedures, Plaintiff points to Rule 11 of the JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rules & Procedures.1 The Court need not decide which set of rules is appropriate under the arbitration agreement's delegation clause because both sets of Rules contain an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
A.V. v. Panama-Buena Vista Union Sch. Dist.
... ... 9 Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. , 546 U.S. 500, 506, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006) ; see also ... ...
-
Bulnes v. Suez WTS Servs. U.S.
... ... Cone Mem'l Hosp. v ... Mercury Constr. Corp. , 460 U.S. 1, 24-25 (1983); see ... also AT&T Techs., Inc. v ... see also Condee v. Longwood Mgmt. Corp., 88 ... Cal.App.4th 215, 217-19 (2001). However, when the ... unenforceable.” See Esquer v. Educ. Mgmt ... Corp. , 292 F.Supp.3d 1005, 1014 (S.D. Cal. 2017) ... ...
-
Maharaj v. Charter Commc'ns
...whether to compel a party to arbitration, a district court may not review the merits of the dispute[.]” Esquer v. Educ. Mgmt. Corp., 292 F.Supp.3d 1005, 1010 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (quotations omitted). Instead, a district court's determinations are limited to (1) whether a valid arbitration exis......
-
Llevat v. True N. Brands, LLC
...whether to compel a party to arbitration, a district court may not review the merits of the dispute[.]” Esquer v. Educ. Mgmt. Corp., 292 F.Supp.3d 1005, 1010 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (quotations omitted). Instead, a district court's determinations are limited to (1) whether a valid arbitration exis......