Williams v. Eaze Sols., Inc.

Williams v. Eaze Sols., Inc.

Opinion

 [*1236]  ORDER RE ARBITRATION

Re: Dkt. No. 17

In this putative class action, plaintiff Farrah Williams alleges that defendant Eaze Solutions violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. § 227, by sending her unsolicited, autodialed text messages. Eaze seeks to compel arbitration of her claims pursuant to its terms of service. Dkt. No. 17. While the case raises interesting issues about "ganjapreneurship" and the budding legal marijuana industry, the questions presently before the Court are limited to whether there was an agreement to arbitrate and, if so, whether the Court or an arbitrator decides the arbitrability of plaintiff's claims.

After an initial set of briefing on the motion to compel and oral argument, the Court called for supplemental submissions from the parties on the application of Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 126 S. Ct. 1204, 163 L. Ed. 2d 1038 (2006). Dkt. No. 35. In light of the Court's request [**2]  for supplemental briefing, Williams's motion for leave to file a sur-reply on similar topics, Dkt. No. 25, is denied. Eaze's motion to compel arbitration is granted.

BACKGROUND

The parties do not dispute the salient facts. Eaze operates a marijuana mobile application ("app") and online marketplace. Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl.") ¶¶ 13-15. The app facilitates the delivery of cannabis products from dispensaries to consumers. Williams signed up for Eaze's service in September 2017. Dkt. No. 17-1, Declaration of Daniel Erickson ("Erickson Decl.") ¶ 17; see also Dkt. No. 21 at 2. Before creating her Eaze account, Williams checked a box consenting to Eaze's terms of service. Erickson Decl. ¶ 17. The sign-up screen looked like this:

 [*1237]  

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.