Altshuler v. Space Exploration Technology Corporation, 2:25-cv-00831

Plaintiff Douglas Altshuler filed suit against Space Exploration Technology Corporation (SpaceX) in the Western District of Washington.
SpaceX moved to compel arbitration and to stay the civil proceeding, citing a signed employment arbitration agreement.
Altshuler argued the agreement was unenforceable due to ambiguity, procedural, and substantive unconscionability.
The arbitration agreement referenced and incorporated the JAMS Employment Arbitration Rules, accessible via website link.
Altshuler’s response to the motion was deemed untimely, but even if considered, the Court found his opposition unpersuasive.
The Court addressed arguments regarding ambiguity, the opportunity to review terms, and the confidentiality provisions in the arbitration agreement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ambiguity of Arbitration Terms	Agreement is ambiguous; irreconcilable provisions.	Provisions address different conduct (agency vs. court).	No ambiguity; agreement enforceable by its plain terms.
Procedural Unconscionability	Lacked meaningful choice; insufficient review time.	Plaintiff had two weeks to review and consult counsel.	No procedural unconscionability.
Substantive Unconscionability	Confidentiality provision is overly strict.	Agreement allows exceptions as required by law/JAMS Rules.	Confidentiality provisions are not unconscionable.
Validity of Arbitration Agreement	Did not recall agreeing; unaware of terms.	Evidence shows Plaintiff signed agreement via AdobeSign.	Plaintiff’s lack of recall does not rebut evidence.

Burnett v. Pagliacci Pizza, Inc., 470 P.3d 486 (Wash. 2020) (meaningful choice is the key factor in procedural unconscionability)
Adler v. Fred Lind Manor, 103 P.3d 773 (Wash. 2004) (one week is ample opportunity to review arbitration agreement)
Phillips v. Swedish Health Servs., 567 P.3d 625 (Wash. Ct. App. 2025) (confidential arbitration provision not substantively unconscionable if law provides contrary)