Augustine v. TLC Resorts Vacation Club, LLC, 3:18-cv-01120

Background

Plaintiff Ophelia Augustine purchased a TLC Resorts timeshare membership in Las Vegas in Sept. 2014 and later sued for alleged TCPA text-message violations.
Defendant moved to compel arbitration under a clause referenced in a one‑page Membership Enrollment Agreement (MEA) signed by Plaintiff; the MEA stated disputes are governed by the Club Rules.
Defendant submitted the Club Rules (containing a broad, bilateral, mandatory arbitration clause prohibiting class arbitration and applying AAA rules) and declarations asserting the Club Rules were provided (DVD) and enrollment procedures were followed.
Plaintiff contended she never received or read the Club Rules, did not know what arbitration meant, and that any arbitration clause is unconscionable and does not cover TCPA claims.
The Court applied Nevada law (choice‑of‑law clauses in MEA and Club Rules; transaction and performance occurred in Nevada) and evaluated formation, unconscionability, and scope under FAA and Nevada law.
Court concluded a valid agreement to arbitrate exists, the clause is not unconscionable, the TCPA claims fall within its broad scope, and granted motion to compel arbitration.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Existence of an arbitration agreement	Augustine: no mutual assent; never received Club Rules; did not know arbitration	TLC: signed MEA which references Club Rules and acknowledges opportunity to review; Club Rules were provided (DVD); declarations corroborate	MEA’s reference + Club Rules + declarations satisfy formation by preponderance; Augustine is bound despite claiming she did not read the Club Rules
Applicable law	Augustine: California law applies (resident; other contract lacks forum clause)	TLC: Nevada law governs per contract choice‑of‑law; transaction occurred in Nevada	Nevada law applies under federal choice‑of‑law rules and parties’ contractual choice
Unconscionability	Augustine: contract of adhesion; arbitration in Nevada is burdensome; clause overly broad	TLC: clause bilateral, AAA rules, arbitrator selection not unilateral; Concepcion favors enforcement; no Nevada authority showing mere inconvenience invalidates clause	Court: some procedural unconscionability (adhesive), but no substantive unconscionability; clause enforceable under Nevada law
Scope—do TCPA claims fall within arbitration clause?	Augustine: TCPA tort claims not related to membership/credit transactions; outside scope	TLC: Club Rules broadly cover claims ‘‘relating to any aspect of the relationship’’ including tort/statute/advertising; presumption in favor of arbitration	Court: clause’s broad language covers contract, tort, statute, and pre/post‑agreement claims; TCPA claims fall within arbitration scope

Key Cases Cited

Ashbey v. Archstone Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 785 F.3d 1320 (9th Cir. 2015) (party moving to compel must show existence and scope of written arbitration agreement by preponderance)
Norcia v. Samsung Telecomms. Am., LLC, 845 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. 2017) (apply ordinary state contract law to formation; moving party bears burden to prove agreement)
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (U.S. 2011) (FAA preempts state rules that single out arbitration and disfavors class‑waiver enforcement)
Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1985) (federal policy favors enforcement of arbitration agreements where applicable)
Tompkins v. 23andMe, Inc., 840 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2016) (doubts about scope of arbitrable issues resolved in favor of arbitration)
Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. Casarrotto, 517 U.S. 681 (U.S. 1996) (states may not impose special notice requirements applicable only to arbitration provisions)
Tallman v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 359 P.3d 113 (Nev. 2015) (Nevada recognizes FAA‑consistent statute validating written arbitration agreements)
Campanelli v. Conservas Altamira, S.A., 477 P.2d 870 (Nev. 1970) (party who signs a written contract is presumptively bound absent fraud or wrongful act)