Doe v. Optum, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
Defendant Optum, Inc. moved to compel arbitration and stay the case under the Federal Arbitration Act, and Plaintiff John Doe filed a notice of non-opposition. The court granted the motion, finding a valid arbitration agreement encompassing the dispute.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to compel arbitration granted“Accordingly, as a valid arbitration agreement that encompasses the dispute at issue exists, and Plaintiff does not oppose compelling arbitration, the Court GRANTS the motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the two-part test for compelling arbitration under the FAA: (1) existence of a valid written agreement and (2) that the agreement covers the dispute. The order recites that the plaintiff agreed to terms of use containing an arbitration clause covering 'any claims relating to [the] [t]erms, or the Online Services.' The plaintiff's claims allege tracking/interception of medical information while using the website, which the court reasonably characterizes as an 'online service.' Furthermore, the plaintiff explicitly did not oppose the motion, removing any factual dispute regarding the formation or scope of the agreement. The decision follows logically from the cited authority and the undisputed record. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally and substantively sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for compelling arbitration under the FAA, applies it to the specific facts (existence of a signed terms of use with an arbitration clause covering online services), and notes the plaintiff's lack of opposition. There are no significant gaps in reasoning or missing authorities for this straightforward, unopposed motion.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of Case No.: 3:25-cv-44-CAB-JLB others similarly situated, 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO Plaintiff, 13 COMPEL ARBITRATION v. 14 [Doc. No. 10] OPTUM, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 On March 31, 2025, Defendant Optum, Inc., filed a motion to compel arbitration 18 pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and to stay the case. [Doc. No. 10.] On 19 April 18, 2025, Plaintiff John Doe filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion. [Doc. 20 No. 11.] The Court has subject matter over the case as Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated, 21 inter alia, a federal statute—the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 22 § 2511(1). “A party seeking to compel arbitration has the burden under the FAA to show 23 (1) the existence of a valid, written agreement to arbitrate; and if it exists, (2) that the 24 agreement to arbitrate encompasses the dispute at issue.” Ashbey v. Archstone Prop. 25 Mgmt., Inc., 785 F.3d 1320, 1323 (9th Cir. 2015). Defendant demonstrates that Plaintiff 26 used Defendant’s website, created an online account, and agreed to its terms of use, which 27 included an agreement to arbitrate. [Doc. No. 10-1 at 9–13.] The agreement notes that it 28 1 includes “any claims relating to [the] [t]erms, or the Online Services.” [/d. at 13.] Plaintiff 2 alleges that Defendant facilitated the tracking and interception of Plaintiff’s confidential 3 medical information when Plaintiff used Defendant’s website, which qualifies as an online 4 ||service. [Compl. §§ 94-102.] Accordingly, as a valid arbitration agreement that 5 ||encompasses the dispute at issue exists, and Plaintiff does not oppose compelling 6 || arbitration, the Court GRANTS the motion. 7 It is SO ORDERED. 8 9 || Dated: May 21, 2025 € Z 10 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28