Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
June 10, 20201, Submitted, San Francisco, California; June 12, 2020, Filed
Plaintiff Allen Lee appeals the district court's decision granting Defendant Ticketmaster's motion to compel arbitration and dismissing Lee's case. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts of this case, we need not recount them here.
] "We review a district judge's order to compel arbitration de novo." Casa del Caffe Vergnano S.P.A., v. ItalFlavors, LLC, 816 F.3d 1208, 1211 (9th Cir. 2016); see [**2] also Serafin v. Balco Props. Ltd., LLC, 185 Cal. Rptr. 3d 151, 173, [*394] 235 Cal. App. 4th 165 (Ct. App. 2015) ("[When] there are no facts in dispute, the existence of a contract is a question we decide de novo.").
] To determine "whether a valid arbitration agreement exists, federal courts 'apply ordinary state-law principles that govern the formation of contracts.'" Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171, 1175 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944, 115 S. Ct. 1920, 131 L. Ed. 2d 985 (1995)).3 "While new commerce on the Internet has exposed courts to many new situations, it has not fundamentally changed the principles of contract." Id. (quoting Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393, 403 (2d Cir. 2004)). "One such principle is the requirement that '[m]utual manifestation of assent, whether by written or spoken word or by conduct, is the touchstone of contract.'" Id. (quoting Specht v. Netscape Commc'ns Corp., 306 F.3d 17, 29 (2d Cir. 2002)). Under California law, "[c]ourts must determine whether the outward manifestations of consent would lead a reasonable person to believe the offeree has assented to the agreement." Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., 771 F.3d 559, 565 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Meyer v. Benko, 55 Cal. App. 3d 937, 127 Cal. Rptr. 846 (1976)).
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
817 Fed. Appx. 393 *; 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 18718 **; 2020 WL 3124256
ALLEN LEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TICKETMASTER L.L.C., a Virginia corporation; LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
Notice: PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.
Prior History: [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. D.C. No. 3:18-cv-05987-VC. Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding.
Lee v. Ticketmaster L.L.C., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231894 (N.D. Cal., Apr. 1, 2019)
website, Terms, assent, users, browsewrap, courts, click, manifestation, clickwrap, button, terms and conditions, arbitration, displayed, notice, compel arbitration, sufficient notice, continued use, de novo, principles, contracts, hyperlink, binding, signing, textual, bottom, posted, screen, box
Business & Corporate Compliance, Arbitration, Federal Arbitration Act, Orders to Compel Arbitration, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Contracts Law, Contract Formation, Acceptance, Contract Conditions & Provisions, Arbitration Clauses, Arbitration Agreements, Computer & Internet Law, Electronic Contracts, Types of Transactions, Clickwrap Licenses, Contracts Law, Defenses, Failure to Read Contract