Opinion
3:20-cv-01220-YY
05-20-2021
BRIAN ROLLINS, individually, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WINK LABS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and i.am.plus ELECTRONICS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On February 22, 2021, Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued her Findings and Recommendation (F. & R.) [ECF 35]. Judge You recommends that I deny Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or to Compel Arbitration [ECF 20]. Defendants Wink Labs, Inc. and i.am.plus Electronics, Inc. filed timely Objections [ECF 37]. Upon review, I decline to adopt Judge You's F. & R.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F. & R. to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F. & R. depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the F. & R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
DISCUSSION
Defendants seek to enforce an arbitration agreement. “[T]he district court's role is limited to determining whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and, if so, whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue. If the answer is yes to both questions, the court must enforce the agreement.” Lifescan, Inc. v. Premier Diabetic Servs., Inc., 363 F.3d 1010, 1012 (9th Cir. 2004).
Here, Judge You assumed the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and held that the agreement does not encompass the dispute at issue. F. & R. [ECF 35] at 11-12. Specifically, Judge You held that “the arbitration clause applies to disputes over the services, not the purchase of the product, which precedes the use of any services.” Id. at 10.
I agree that the arbitration clause applies to disputes over the services. But, in my view, so does this lawsuit. Mr. Rollins claims to have purchased a Wink Hub in 2015 and used it without fees until 2020. Compl. [ECF 1] ¶¶ 10-11, 18-30. Defendants claim that “all persons who want to use a Wink Hub must sign up for an account and must agree affirmatively to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.” Travis Lopez Decl. [ECF 21] ¶ 4. Those terms define “Services” to include “using the associated software, products and/or devices.” Id. Ex. A, at 1. The terms also include the alleged arbitration agreement. Id. Ex. A, at 11. Mr. Rollins now claims that he cannot use the device without paying a subscription fee. Compl. [ECF 1] ¶ 30. In other words, the terms have changed, and Mr. Rollins filed this lawsuit to challenge the change. Viewing the lawsuit in this way, his challenge falls within the scope of the alleged arbitration agreement.
Thus, if a valid arbitration agreement exists, it covers these claims. It is not clear, however, that such an agreement exists, and I will defer to Judge You to rule on this issue in the first instance.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, I decline to adopt Judge You's F. & R. [ECF 35].
IT IS SO ORDERED.