Temple v. Best Rate Holdings LLC
Decision Date | 27 December 2018 |
Docket Number | Case No: 8:18-cv-176-T-36JSS |
Citation | 360 F.Supp.3d 1289 |
Parties | John TEMPLE, Plaintiff, v. BEST RATE HOLDINGS LLC and Lending Tree Inc., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
Patrick H. Peluso, Pro Hac Vice, Steven L. Woodrow, Pro Hac Vice, Woodrow & Peluso, LLC, Denver, CO, Ryan S. Shipp, Law Office of Ryan S. Shipp, PLLC, Lantana, FL, for Plaintiff.
Amy E. Stoll, Barnett, Bolt, Kirkwood, Long & Koche, Tampa, FL, Ethan McLeod Knott, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants.
This cause comes before the Court upon Defendant Best Rate Holdings, LLC's ("Best Rate") Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. 18), Plaintiff John Temple's ("Plaintiff") response in opposition (Doc. 25), Best Rate's reply in support of its motion (Doc. 30), Defendant Lending Tree, LLC's1 ("Lending Tree") Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings (Doc. 20), Plaintiff's response in opposition (Doc. 26), and Lending Tree's reply in support of its motion (Doc. 31).
In its motion, Best Rate argues that it and Plaintiff agreed to submit all issues, including gateway questions of arbitrability, to arbitration. Alternatively, Best Rate argues, if the Court determines that gateway questions of arbitrability are for the Court to decide instead of the arbitrator, then the Court should hold that arbitration is required pursuant to the agreement between Best Rate and Plaintiff. In response, Plaintiff argues that the agreement is not enforceable and that, even if it were, his claim falls outside the scope of arbitration.
In its motion, Lending Tree argues that it can also enforce Best Rate's and Plaintiff's agreement and compel arbitration because it is an intended third-party beneficiary. Alternatively, Lending Tree argues, Plaintiff should be estopped from avoiding arbitration with Lending Tree because Plaintiff's claim against Lending Tree is combined with his claim against Best Rate. Plaintiff disagrees with both contentions. The Court, having considered the motions and being fully advised in the premises, will grant the motions.
Plaintiff filed a single-count putative class action complaint against Best Rate and Lending Tree (collectively, "Defendants"), alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. § 227, based on purported text messages sent by Defendants to Plaintiff's wireless telephone number using an automatic telephone dialing system. Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 14-15, 28-29, 34. Best Rate is a digital marketing company that operates websites used to provide marketing and lead generation services for its advertiser customers. Doc. 18-1 at ¶ 4. Lending Tree is an online exchange that connects consumers with third-party lenders, banks, and credit partners who compete for the consumers' business. Doc. 20 at p. 2.
Plaintiff began receiving the text messages at issue in February 2017, after signing up to obtain information about a one-percent mortgage loan for military veterans advertised in an e-mail message from Defendants. Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 25, 27. To obtain more information about the one-percent offer, Plaintiff clicked on the link in the e-mail message. Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 25-26; Doc. 25 at p. 3. Plaintiff was taken to Best Rate's website, www.veteransvaloans.com. Doc. 18-1 at ¶ 6. Plaintiff followed various prompts on the website directing him to enter financial and contact information. Doc. 1 at ¶ 25-26; Doc. 25 at p. 3; Doc. 25-1 at pp. 2-7; Doc. 18-1 at ¶ 6. The website contained the following two paragraphs:
Doc. 18-1 at p. 3. Clicking on the Terms and Conditions hyperlink (the "Terms and Conditions Hyperlink") would bring the website user to another page containing an agreement (the "Agreement") comprised of several paragraphs, including paragraph 19, the dispute resolution provision (the "Arbitration Provision"). Doc. 18-1 at pp. 2-3, 7, 14.
The Agreement provided, in pertinent part:
Doc. 18-1 at pp. 7, 14-15 (emphasis in original).
After visiting the website2 and providing his information, Plaintiff began receiving text messages from Defendants similar to the following: "We matched you with a Mortgage Lender to buy a home. 866-721-0351 **http://1bestmortgagerate.com/E8YH25S** Text STOP to halt[.]" Doc. 1 at ¶ 27. The referenced phone number, when dialed, connected the caller to Lending Tree. Doc. 1 at ¶ 29. The referenced website link, when clicked on, took the user to mortgageadvisor.com, a website owned and operated by Best Rate. Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 29-30.
Plaintiff continued to receive identical or nearly identical text messages approximately once per week. Doc. 1 at ¶ 28. Plaintiff decided to opt out of receiving the text messages, and replied to the text messages with the word "STOP" or "Stop" multiple times. Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 31-33. Defendants continued to send Plaintiff text messages despite Plaintiff's efforts. Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 32-33.
On January 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant putative class action complaint against Defendants. Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 47-51. In response, Defendants each filed motions to compel arbitration.
The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") provides that written agreements to arbitrate "shall be 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. Thus, the FAA reflects federal policy favoring resolution of disputes through arbitration. Volt Info. Scis., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. Of Leland Stanford Junior Univ. , 489 U.S. 468, 474-75, 109 S.Ct. 1248, 103 L.Ed.2d 488 (1989) ; see also AT & T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion , 563 U.S. 333, 339, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (2011) ( )(citing Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp. , 460 U.S. 1,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Al Thani v. Hanke
...did not “render[] the parties' intent to delegate arbitrability of [a] supplemental claim” to an arbitrator “clear [or] unmistakable.” Id. In Temple, arbitration provision provided that “the parties agree to submit their claims for arbitration ‘[s]hould a dispute arise concerning the Site O......
-
Arencibia v. AGA Serv. Co.
...of [amount]" would indicate his acceptance to the 36-page Policy accessible via the hyperlink. See Temple v. Best Rate Holdings LLC, 360 F. Supp. 3d 1289, 1304 (M.D. Fla. 2018) (hyperlink to the agreement's terms and conditions "was placed in a manner conspicuous enough to provide reasonabl......
-
Raw Life Organics LLC v. SBL, LLC
...that the user is agreeing to and is bound by the website's terms of service by merely using the website." Temple v. Best Rate Holdings LLC, 360 F. Supp. 3d 1289, 1302 (M.D. Fla. 2018). By comparison, a clickwrap agreement "require[s] a user to affirmatively click a box on the website acknow......
-
Oscar Ins. Co. Of Florida v. Blue Cross
...... of plans purchased in San Antonio or Austin, fails to specify the rate policyholders switched from those plans in the first year, and does not ......
-
Assent Uber Alles: Enforcing Browsewrap Agreements in Smartphone Applications
...prudent user that clicking to register includes agreeing to be bound by the hyperlinked terms).87. Temple v. Best Rate Holdings LLC, 360 F. Supp. 3d 1289, 1302 (M.D. Fla. 2018) (holding that the validity of the browsewrap agreement turns on whether the website puts a reasonably prudent user......