Green v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 22, 2022
• Docket: 3:21-cv-02387
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 MARY HUNTER GREEN, 10 Case No. 21-cv-02387-RS Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 COMPEL ARBITRATION AND COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, MOTION TO DISMISS 13 et al.,

14 Defendants.

15 Plaintiff Mary Green sued Defendants Sunrun and Costco averring various labor-law 16 claims. Green worked at a Sunrun kiosk inside a Costco, selling solar panels, until she was fired, 17 allegedly because of age and disability discrimination. Sunrun moves to compel arbitration of 18 Green’s claims against it, and consequently to dismiss this case.1 19 Sunrun introduces evidence of Green’s signed employment contract, which includes an 20 arbitration agreement.2 Green validly signed the contract electronically, using a secret password to 21 authenticate her signature, in compliance with the California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. 22 Civil Code § 1633.1 et seq. Green’s argument that she did not consent to an electronic checkbox 23 constituting her signature are belied by the term in the agreement providing that her checking the 24

25 1 Costco’s unopposed joinder is granted. 26 2 Sunrun does not explicitly request judicial notice or incorporation by reference, but incorporation by reference is appropriate given Green’s complaint implicitly relies extensively on the 27 employment agreement. Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 998 (9th Cir. 2018). 1 box counted as a signature.* Decl. of Jessica O’ Quin, at 3; Ex. B. Thus, the Federal Arbitration 2 || Act governs this agreement at issue, and requires that it be arbitrated. 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq; see also 3 Circuit City Stores v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 123 (2001). 4 Green’s argument that the contract lacks consideration because her employment ended 5 betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of consideration and contract law more 6 || generally. She cites no authority for this proposition because there is none. Green exchanged a 7 || promise to labor for Sunrun’s promise of money. Consideration does not automatically become 8 invalid after performance ends; otherwise, no contract would be enforceable after one side stopped 9 || performing. The contract is also not unconscionable. While it may be a contract of adhesion, it is 10 not substantively unconscionable. The terms of the contract are fair, including, but not limited to, 11 the terms concerning arbitration. Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc., 62 Cal. 4th 1237, 1247-48 (2016). 12 Finally, Sunrun moves to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (and other 13 rules), or, in the alternative, to stay the action pending arbitration. Because Green agreed to 14 arbitrate, dismissal is appropriate. Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 725 (9th Cir. 3 15 2000). Thus, Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is granted, as is their motion to dismiss. 16 || Although amendment seems futile, leave to amend is granted because of the strong presumption in 3 17 its favor when a complaint is dismissed for the first time. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 18 || 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). 19 20 || ITISSO ORDERED. 21 22 || Dated: February 22, 2022 □ 23 RICHARD SEEBORG 24 Chief United States District Judge 25 76 |; It should be noted that Green does not submit a declaration affirming these facts as required by 27 || Local Rule 7.5. 28 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND MOTION TO DISMISS . CASE No. 21-cv-02387-RS