Fong v. U.S. Bancorp

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied U.S. Bancorp and U.S. Bank National Association’s renewed motion to compel arbitration and denied the plaintiffs’ motion to strike as moot. The court held that the renewed motion was a successive motion based on evidence defendants already possessed and declined to reconsider the arbitration issue after the Ninth Circuit had vacated the prior order compelling arbitration. The court further concluded that the 2012 and 2013 safe-deposit-box contracts did not establish, on the record presented, that the arbitration agreement was clearly incorporated by reference or made available to the plaintiffs.

Holdings

1. The court declines to exercise its discretion to entertain the successive motion because Defendants have not presented an expanded factual record based on new evidence; they are re-arguing the same incorporation by reference issues already decided by the Ninth Circuit.
2. Even on the merits, the motion fails. The 2012 contract's incorporation language is substantively identical to the 2013 contract. The Ninth Circuit already found a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the arbitration agreement was 'called to the attention' of or 'easily available' to Plaintiffs.
3. Plaintiffs' motion to strike is denied as moot because the court denies Defendants' renewed motion to compel arbitration on other grounds.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should exercise its discretion to entertain Defendants' successive motion to compel arbitration.
2. Whether Defendants' 'new evidence' (a 2012 contract) establishes that the arbitration agreement was properly incorporated by reference into the contract Plaintiffs signed.
3. Whether Plaintiffs' motion to strike Defendants' successive motion should be granted.

Disposition

other