Andrew Harrington v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 1 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDREW HARRINGTON; KATIE Nos. 23-15650 24-1979 LIAMMAYTRY; JASON LENCHERT; DYLAN BASCH, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00940-DJH Plaintiffs - Appellees, MEMORANDUM* v.

CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE, INC.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Diane J. Humetewa, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 7, 2025 Phoenix, Arizona

Before: HAWKINS, CLIFTON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. (“Cracker Barrel”) appeals the denial

of its motion to compel arbitration of the claims brought by plaintiff Dylan Basch in

this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. We have jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. § 16(a). Reviewing de novo the denial of a motion to compel arbitration and the

underlying findings of fact for clear error, Bielski v. Coinbase, Inc., 87 F.4th 1003,

1008 (9th Cir. 2023), we affirm.

The basic facts are undisputed. Basch encountered the arbitration agreement

in question as part of his “Cracker Barrel University” online training. He checked

the “Mark Complete” box at the end of the dispute resolution module of the training

program. At that time, Basch was a minor. In connection with this litigation, Basch

submitted a declaration explaining his lack of knowledge of the agreement and

purporting to repudiate the agreement. Basch signed that declaration when he was

19 years old—18 months after he reached the age of majority to be precise.

The parties agree that Arizona law governs the arbitration agreement and its

enforceability. Under Arizona law, “a contract entered into with a minor is

voidable.” St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Muniz, 504 P.2d 546, 548 (Ariz. Ct.

App. 1972). The contract remains in effect until renounced, id., and a minor must

renounce the agreement “within a reasonable time after reaching his majority,”

Almada v. Ruelas, 393 P.2d 254, 256 (Ariz. 1964) (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). Under the circumstances, the district court did not err in

concluding Basch renounced the agreement “within a reasonable time after reaching

his majority.”

2 24-1979 In a separate opinion, we vacate, in part, the district court’s preliminary

certification order appealed in case number 23-15650 and remand for further

proceedings.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

Each party will bear its own costs on appeal.

3 24-1979