Lublin v. American Automobile Association of Northern California, Nevada & Utah, 2:17-cv-00021

Plaintiff Abraham Lublin was hired in May 2010 as an insurance agent in AAA’s Las Vegas office and later claims he discovered unlawful insurance-sales practices and licensing deficiencies.
Plaintiff alleges he reported these issues to a Nevada Division of Insurance investigator in September 2014.
Shortly after, Plaintiff says the office manager made false accusations to police and Plaintiff was terminated in October 2014 (purportedly for poor sales).
Plaintiff asserts tort and Title VII claims: tortious retaliatory discharge, IIED, negligent supervision, race and national-origin discrimination, and Title VII retaliation.
Defendant moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss/stay under the Federal Arbitration Act based on an arbitration agreement it says Plaintiff signed in June 2011; Plaintiff denies signing or ever being presented the agreement.
The district court found a genuine dispute of material fact about whether a valid arbitration agreement was formed and denied the motions without prejudice, giving Defendant 30 days to renew if it can produce sufficient evidence of formation or assent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a valid arbitration agreement exists	Lublin denies signing or being shown the arbitration agreement; contests formation	AAA contends Lublin signed the June 2011 electronic arbitration agreement and must arbitrate	Court: Genuine issue of material fact exists; cannot compel arbitration now; denial without prejudice
Whether the party contesting formation can have arbitrability decided by arbitrator (delegation clause)	Lublin challenges formation of the entire agreement, so threshold issue belongs to court	AAA argues the delegation clause sends arbitrability to arbitrator	Court: Where party contests making of the contract, court decides existence; rejects delegation argument
Whether electronic systems or conduct can prove assent absent signature	Lublin says he was never presented the agreement; denies assent	AAA argues electronic acknowledgment systems suffice to show assent	Court: AAA offered no evidence of the electronic system or chain of custody; plaintiff gets benefit of reasonable doubts; insufficient proof of assent
Remedy pending resolution of formation	Lublin seeks to keep case in court absent proof of agreement	AAA sought stay/dismissal pending arbitration	Court: Denies motion to compel and motion to dismiss/stay without prejudice; allows renewed motion if Defendant obtains additional evidence

Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 (1984) (FAA establishes national policy favoring arbitration).
Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468 (1989) (arbitration agreements are placed on same footing as other contracts).
Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213 (1985) (district courts must direct parties to arbitration where agreement is signed).
Lee v. Intelius, Inc., 737 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 2013) (court’s FAA role: determine existence and scope of arbitration agreement).
Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 2006) (if agreement valid, court should stay or dismiss claims subject to arbitration).
Three Valleys Mun. Water Dist. v. E.F. Hutton, 925 F.2d 1136 (9th Cir. 1991) (when formation is disputed, courts give opposing party benefit of reasonable doubts and inferences).
United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574 (1960) (a party cannot be required to arbitrate disputes it has not agreed to submit).
Tallman v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 359 P.3d 113 (Nev. 2015) (employee’s lack of notice to arbitration agreement undermines assent).