Nesbitt v. FCNH, Inc.
Citation | 74 F.Supp.3d 1366 |
Decision Date | 19 November 2014 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No 14–cv–00990–RBJ |
Parties | Rhonda Nesbitt, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FCNH, Inc., Virginia Massage Therapy, Inc., Mid–Atlantic Massage Therapy, Inc., Steiner Education Group, Inc., Steiner Leisure Ltd., SEG Cort LLC, d/b/a as the “Steiner Education Group”, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
David H. Miller, Rachel Graves, Sawaya Law Firm, Denver, CO, Brian David Gonzales, The Law Offices of Brian D. Gonzales, Fort Collins, CO, Leon Marc Greenberg, Attorney at Law, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff.
Jeffrey Max Lippa, Natalia Solis Ballinger, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Denver, CO, Scott David Segal, Law Offices of Scott D. Segal, PA, Miami, FL, for Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration of Individual Claims and to Stay Proceedings [ECF No. 10]. For the following reasons, the motion is denied.
The plaintiff, Ms. Nesbitt, filed this action with the Court on April 7, 2014. In her Complaint she alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and numerous state wage and hour laws. According to the Complaint, the defendants are each involved in the management or operation of, or have an ownership interest in, the Steiner Education Group; and the Steiner Education Group runs schools of massage therapy and esthetics in Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington. Ms. Nesbitt claims that while enrolled as students of massage therapy at one of these schools, she and the putative class members were required to perform massages for paying members of the general public without compensation. She alleges that the labor provided by herself and the putative class members established an employment relationship for purposes of the FLSA and state labor laws.
[ECF No. 1–1].
As to costs, the Arbitration Agreement provides that “[e]ach party shall bear the expense of its own counsel, experts, witnesses, and preparation and presentation of proofs.” Id.
The agreement then issues the following warning, in capital letters:
The question for purposes of this motion is whether the Arbitration Agreement is enforceable against Ms. Nesbitt such that this Court must compel arbitration of her claims.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
9 U.S.C. § 2 (emphasis added). This provision reflects a “liberal federal policy favoring arbitration,” Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Const. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983), as well as “the fundamental principle that arbitration is a matter of contract,” Rent–A–Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 67, 130 S.Ct. 2772, 177 L.Ed.2d 403 (2010). “By its terms, 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 on issues as to which an arbitration agreement has been signed.” Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 218, 105 S.Ct. 1238, 84 L.Ed.2d 158 (1985) (citing 9 U.S.C. §§ 3, 4 ) (emphasis in original). However, “[u]nlike the general presumption that a particular issue is arbitrable when the existence of an arbitration agreement is not in dispute, when the dispute is whether there is a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement in the first place, the presumption of arbitrability falls away.”Riley Mfg. Co. v. Anchor Glass Container Corp., 157 F.3d 775, 779 (10th Cir.1998) (internal citations omitted).
Section 2 of the FAA includes a saving clause that allows for arbitration agreements to be declared unenforceable “upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. “This saving clause permits agreements to arbitrate to be invalidated by ‘generally applicable contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability,’ but not by defenses that apply only to arbitration or that derive their meaning from the fact that an agreement to arbitrate is at issue.” AT & T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 1746, 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (2011) (quoting Doctor's Assocs., Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681, 687, 116 S.Ct. 1652, 134 L.Ed.2d 902 (1996) ). Colorado's test for unconscionability does not explicitly favor or disfavor arbitration. See Bernal v. Burnett, 793 F.Supp.2d 1280, 1287 (D.Colo.2011).
The first question at issue in this case is whether the Arbitration Agreement is unenforceable because it is unconscionable. A federal court must apply state contract law principles when determining whether an arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable. See First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944, 115 S.Ct. 1920, 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995). Under Colorado law, one of the legal grounds for revoking a contract is unconscionability. See, e.g., Davis v. M.L.G. Corp., 712 P.3d 985, 991 (Colo.1986) ; Univ. Hills Beauty Acad., Inc. v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 38 Colo.App. 194, 554 P.2d 723, 726 (1976). Colorado courts consider a number of factors in deciding whether a contractual provision is unconscionable, including:
(1) the use of a standardized agreement executed by parties of unequal bargaining power; (2) the lack of an opportunity for the customer to read or become familiar with the document before signing it; (3) the use of fine print in the portion of the contract containing the provision in question; (4) the absence of evidence that the provision was commercially reasonable or should reasonably have been anticipated; (5) the terms of the contract, including substantive fairness; (6) the relationship of the parties, including factors of assent, unfair surprise, and notice; and (7) the circumstances surrounding the formation of the contract, including setting, purpose, and effect.
Bernal, 793 F.Supp.2d at 1286 (citing Davis, 712 P.3d at 991) [hereinafter “the Davis factors”]. The Davis factors encompass both procedural and substantive unconscionability, both of which must be shown in Colorado. See Vernon v. Qwest Commc'ns Intern., Inc., 925 F.Supp.2d 1185, 1194–95 (D.Colo.2013) ; Davis, 712 P.2d at 991. The burden of proof is on the party opposing arbitration. See Weller v. HSBC Mortg. Servs., Inc., 971 F.Supp.2d 1072, 1080 (D.Colo.2013).
The plaintiff argues that most of the Davis factors weigh in her favor, and that taken together they show that the Arbitration Agreement is both substantively and procedurally unconscionable. The Court begins with an analysis of the alleged procedural unfairness of the agreement. The first, second, third, sixth, and seventh Davis factors relate to procedural unconscionability. Looking to the first factor,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Patterson v. Nine Energy Serv., LLC
...arbitration agreement does not contain a savings clause, the entire agreement must be stricken. See, e.g., Nesbitt v. FCNH, Inc., 74 F.Supp.3d 1366, 1375 (D. Colo. 2014) (Jackson, J.) ("Because there is no savings clause and because the agreement itself is unambiguous its provisions cannot ......
-
Patterson v. Nine Energy Serv., LLC, CIV 17-1116 JB\GBW
...an arbitration agreement does not contain a savings clause, the entire agreement must be stricken. See, e.g., Nesbitt v. FCNH, Inc., 74 F. Supp. 3d 1366, 1375 (D. Colo. 2014)(Jackson, J.)("Because there is no savings clause and because the agreement itselfPage 79 is unambiguous its provisio......
-
MemoryTen, Inc. v. Silicon Mountain Holdings
...surrounding the formation of the contract, including setting, purpose, and effect.Nesbitt v. FCNH, Inc., 74 F.Supp.3d 1366, 1371, No. 14 Civ. 990(RBJ), 2014 WL 6477636, at *3 (D.Colo. Nov. 19, 2014). MemoryTen has not shown the sort of inequality of bargaining power or deceptiveness necessa......
-
Levine v. Vitamin Cottage Nat. Food Mkts.
...court must apply state contract law principles when determining whether an arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable.” Nesbitt I, 74 F.Supp.3d at 1371 (citing Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944 (1995)). If the court determines the existence of a valid and enforceable......