ABRAMSON v. FIRST AMERICAN HOME WARRANTY CORPORATION, 2:22-cv-01003

Plaintiff Stewart Abramson received a prerecorded robocall; pressing “1” connected him to “David,” a First American representative who offered a home warranty plan.
Abramson provided requested information, including credit card details, but says he understood he would not be charged until he reviewed and accepted a later contract; First American never charged him and Abramson later canceled by phone.
First American sent a confirmation email stating a contract would be provided 7–10 days after first payment and a 30‑day review period; its sample contract contains a broad arbitration clause covering pre‑purchase claims and surviving termination.
First American moved to compel arbitration (or dismiss) based on the arbitration clause; Abramson disputed formation of any binding contract.
The court applied the Rule 56/summary‑judgment framework for arbitrability, found a genuine dispute about whether an underlying contract (and thus the arbitration clause) was formed, and concluded the record was too sparse to decide.
The court denied both motions without prejudice, ordered narrowly tailored discovery (90 days; up to 5 RFPs, 5 interrogatories, 5 RFAs, and up to 3 depositions per side), and permitted renewal of a motion to compel after discovery.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Formation of an underlying contract / arbitrability	Abramson says he never agreed to be charged or bound until he reviewed a later contract; no charge or contract was sent	First American says Abramson accepted the offer by providing credit card info during the call	Genuine dispute of material fact; cannot decide on current record; limited discovery ordered
Appropriate standard to resolve motion to compel arbitration	N/A (both parties agreed)	N/A	Summary‑judgment standard applies because arbitrability is not apparent from the complaint
Scope and timing of further proceedings	Abramson sought to litigate TCPA claim in court	First American sought immediate arbitration (and dismissal)	Court denied motions without prejudice and allowed limited discovery on formation before renewed motion

MZM Constr. Co. v. N.J. Bldg. Laborers Statewide Benefit Funds, 974 F.3d 386 (3d Cir. 2020) (court must decide formation/existence of arbitration agreement)
Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, LLC, 716 F.3d 764 (3d Cir. 2013) (when arbitrability is not apparent on face of complaint, motion to compel is judged under Rule 56)
Kirleis v. Dickie, 560 F.3d 156 (3d Cir. 2009) (ordinary contract formation principles govern arbitration agreements)
Sandvik AB v. Advent Int’l Corp., 220 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 2000) (severability presumes an underlying, existent agreement)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard; draw all reasonable inferences for non‑movant)
Silfee v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc., [citation="696 F. App'x 576"] (3d Cir. 2017) (arbitrability is a gateway issue courts must resolve before other proceedings)