Kathryn Robinson v. Onstar, LLC
This text of Kathryn Robinson v. Onstar, LLC (Kathryn Robinson v. Onstar, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 15 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KATHRYN M. ROBINSON, individually No. 16-56412 and on behalf of all others similarly sltuated, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 3:15-cv-01731-WQH-BGS
v. MEMORANDUM* ONSTAR, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 6, 2018 Pasadena, California
Before: REINHARDT, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Kathryn Robinson appeals the district court’s dismissal of her complaint
pursuant to an arbitration clause that the district court concluded was enforceable.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see Davidson v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 873 F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir. 2017), we reverse and
remand for further proceedings.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. The parties agree that Robinson and OnStar formed an agreement when she
called OnStar to activate her one-year trial subscription. At that time, Robinson
was unaware that OnStar intended to send her additional terms and conditions,
including the arbitration provision. “[A] consumer [must] be on notice of the
existence of a term before he or she can be legally held to have assented to it.”
Norcia v. Samsung Telecomms. Am., LLC, 845 F.3d 1279, 1289 (9th Cir. 2017)
(quoting Schnabel v. Trilegiant Corp., 697 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir. 2012)).
That the terms and conditions were “available” to Robinson in some sense is
irrelevant when she had neither actual nor constructive notice of their existence at
the time of her agreement with OnStar. Likewise, California Civil Code section
1589 obligated Robinson only “so far as the facts [were] known, or ought to [have
been] known” to her.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Kathryn Robinson v. Onstar, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kathryn-robinson-v-onstar-llc-ca9-2018.