Hupala v. Tianhai Central Air Conditioning Co Ltd

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9 TATSIANA HUPALA, d/b/a “ADAM’S Case No. C22-1408-RSM 10 OFFER,” an individual, 11 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY Plaintiff, AND COMPEL ARBITRATION 12 13 v.

14 TIANHAI Central Air Conditioning Co., Ltd, SALLY BEARD an individual, 15 AMAZON.COM, INC., and DOES 1-4, 16 Defendants. 17

18 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Amazon’s Motion to Stay and 19 Compel Arbitration. Dkt #24. Amazon points to the mandatory arbitration clause in the 20 “Business Services Agreement” or “BSA” cited by Plaintiff Hupala in the Complaint and 21 22 introduced into the record by Amazon. See Dkt. #1 at 3; Dkt. #25-1. This clause states, in 23 bold, that the parties “both consent that any dispute with Amazon or its Affiliates or claim 24 relating in any way to this Agreement or your use of the Services will be resolved by binding 25 arbitration as described in this paragraph, rather than in court,” with three exceptions. Dkt. 26 #25-1 at 11. Those three exceptions are (i) if either party elects to proceed in small claims 27 28 court, (ii) for claims to enjoin infringement or other misuse of intellectual property rights, or 1 2 (iii) Amazon may bring claims related to “your sale of counterfeit products…”. Id. 3 The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) makes agreements to arbitrate “valid, irrevocable, 4 and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any 5 contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. The law reflects an “emphatic federal policy in favor of arbitral dispute 6 resolution,” KPMG LLP v. Cocchi, 565 U.S. 18, 21 (2011). The FAA applies to this action 7 8 both because the transactions at issue involve interstate and foreign commerce, and because the 9 parties’ agreement expressly provides for its application. The Court’s role in deciding a motion 10 to compel arbitration under the FAA is “limited to determining (1) whether a valid agreement 11 to arbitrate exists and, if it does, (2) whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue.” 12 13 Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., 207 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). 14 Plaintiff does not challenge the validity of the BSA, to the contrary Plaintiff seeks 15 specific performance under it. The Court has reviewed the mandatory arbitration clause and 16 finds it to be conspicuous and clear. The arbitration clause clearly encompasses the dispute 17 between Plaintiff and Amazon and none of the exceptions apply to those claims brought against 18 19 Amazon. Amazon’s actions in defending this case, including opposing a TRO Motion, are not 20 inconsistent with moving to compel arbitration. Accordingly, the Court will grant Amazon’s 21 requested relief, stay this case, and compel Plaintiff to arbitrate the claims against Amazon. 22 The Court finds that staying the entire case is warranted. It is likely that the resolution 23 of Plaintiff’s dispute with Amazon will have a significant impact on the claims against the 24 25 remaining Defendants, none of which have appeared in this case. 26 Having considered the briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds 27 and ORDERS that Amazon’s Motion to Stay and Compel Arbitration, Dkt #24, is GRANTED. 28 This case is STAYED, and Plaintiff and Amazon are DIRECTED to arbitrate pursuant to the 1 2 Business Solutions Agreement in effect between them. Plaintiff’s Motion at Dkt. #12 is 3 STRICKEN as MOOT. Plaintiff is free to re-file that Motion, if necessary, once the stay is 4 lifted. The parties are DIRECTED to file a joint status report 90 days after the filing of this 5 Order and every 90 days thereafter until the arbitration is resolved. 6 DATED this 3rd day of January, 2023. 7 8 A 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28