Frank Varela v. Lamps Plus, Inc.
701 F. App'x 670
9th Cir.
2017
Check Treatment
Docket

Frank VARELA, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LAMPS PLUS, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 16-56085

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

August 3, 2017

670

Argued and Submitted July 12, 2017 Pasadena, California

that a plaintiff “tak[e] reasonable precautions” to safeguard his interests. . Contrary to VSI‘s contention, the operative question is not whether Walters unreasonably failed to read the terms of a contract—as explained аbove, no contract exists in this case. Instead, the question is whether Walters was required, as a matter of law, to cross-reference statements on a product‘s label against information found in small print elsewhere on the product. This court has answered that question in the negative. Consumers review the small print on a product‘s label to learn additional details about a product, not to correct potentially misleading representations found on the front. . Applying the logic of Williams to this case, Walters did not have a duty tо validate claims on the front of a product‘s label by cross-checking them against information contained in small print on the back. His failure to read the clarifying serving-size information does not constitute a failure to reasonably safeguard his interests.

5. The district court improperly dismissed Walters’ UTPA claim. To prevail under the UTPA, a private рlaintiff must suffer “an ascertainable loss of money or property . . . as a result of another person‘s willful use or employment of a method, act or practice declared unlawful” under the UTPA. Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.638(1). “Ascertainable” loss is construed to mean any loss “capable of being discovered, observed, or established.” . The loss need be only “objectively verifiable.” .

Walters adequately рleaded his UTPA claim. He alleges that VSI made representations that violate Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608, and that he would not have purchased the product but for the alleged misrepresеntations. The ascertainable loss, therefore, is the monetary value of a product that Walters ‍​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​​‌​‌​‌​‍would not otherwise have bought. Because Walters alleges that he relied on VSI‘s representations, he sufficiently pleaded that VSI‘s conduct caused his loss. See .

To conclude, we affirm the district court‘s dismissal of Walters’ breach оf contract and breach of warranty claims. We reverse the district court‘s dismissal of Walters’ unjust enrichment, fraud, and UTPA claims.

Walters’ motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry 25) is DENIED as moot. VSI‘s motion for leave to submit supplemental briefing (Docket Entry 30) is GRANTED. VSI‘s alternative request to strike portions of Walters’ reply brief (Docket Entry 30) is DENIED.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

The parties shall bear their own costs.

Richard Dale McCune, Jr., Esquire, Attorney, Michele M. Vercoski, Esquire, Attorney, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, Ontario, CA, David Christopher Wright, McCune & Wright, LLP, Redlands, CA, John A. Yanchunis, Attorney, Morgan & Morgan, PA, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Michael Grimaldi, Attorney, Eric Y. Kizirian, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Los Angеles, CA, Jeffry A. Miller, Attorney, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellants

Before: REINHARDT, FERNANDEZ, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Lamps Plus appeals an order permitting class arbitration of claims related to a data breach of personal identifying infоrmation of its employees. After Lamps Plus released his personal information in response to a phishing scam, Frank Varela filed a class action complаint alleging negligence, breach of contract, invasion of privacy, and other claims. Lamps Plus moved to compel bilateral arbitration pursuant to an arbitrаtion agreement (“the Agreement“) it drafted and required Varela to sign as a condition of his employment. The district court found that the Agreement is a contract of adhesion and ambiguous as to class arbitration. It construed the ambiguity against the drafter, Lamps Plus, and compelled arbitration of all claims, allowing class-wide arbitration to proceed.

On appeal, Lamps Plus argues that the parties did not agree to ‍​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​​‌​‌​‌​‍class arbitration. We disagree, and affirm the district court.

“[A] party may not be comрelled under the [Federal Arbitration Act] to submit to class arbitration unless there is a contractual basis for concluding that the party agreed to do so.” . The parties аgree that the Agreement includes no express mention of class proceedings. However, as the Supreme Court stated, “silence” in its Stolt-Nielsen analysis constituted more than the mere absence of language explicitly referring to class arbitration; instead, it meant the absence of agreement. (“[W]e see the question as being whether thе parties agreed to authorize class arbitration.“); see also . There, the Supreme Court accepted the parties’ stipulation that silence meant “there‘s been no agreement that has been reached. . . .” . That the Agreement does not expressly refer to class arbitration is not the “silence” contemplatеd in Stolt-Nielsen.

We apply state law contract principles ‍​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​​‌​‌​‌​‍in order to interpret the Agreement. . In California, a contract is ambiguous “when it is capable of two or morе constructions, both of which are reasonable.” . Contracts may be ambiguous as a whole despite terms and phrases that are not themselves inherently ambiguous. See . Ambiguity is construed against the drafter, a rule that “applies with peculiar force in the case of a contract of adhesion.” .

At its outset, the Agrеement contains a paragraph outlining Varela‘s understanding of the terms in three sweeping phrases. First, it states Varela‘s assent to waiver of “any right I may have to file а lawsuit or other civil action or proceeding relating to my employment with the Company.” Second, it includes an additional waiver by Varela of “any right I may have to resolve employment disputes through trial by judge or jury.” Third, “arbitration shall be in lieu of any and all lawsuits or other civil legal proceedings relating to my employment.” A reasonable—and perhaps the most reasonable—interpretation of this expansive language is that it authorizes class arbitration. It requires no act of interpretive acrobatics to include class proceedings as part of a “lawsuit or other civil legal proceeding[].” Class actions are certainly one of the means to resolve employment disputes in court. That arbitration will be “in lieu of” a set of actions that includes class actions can be reasonably read to allow for сlass arbitration.

This construction is supported by the paragraph below these broad statements, captioned “Claims Covered by the Arbitration Provision.” The first sentence contemplates “claims or controversies” the parties may have against each other, which Lamps Plus argues supports purely binary claims. Yet Varela‘s claims against the company include those that could be brought as part of a class. The Agreement then specifies that arbitrable claims are those that “would have been available to the parties by law,” which obviously include claims as part of a class proceeding. The paragraph lists a non-limiting, vast array of claims covered by the arbitration provisions, including many types of claims for discrimination or harassment (“race, sex, sexual orientation . . .“) ‍​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​​‌​‌​‌​‍that are frequently resolved through class proceedings. See, e.g., (“[S]uits alleging racial or ethnic discrimination are often by their very nature class suits, involving classwide wrongs.“); . The paragraph concludes by excluding from the Agreement two types of claims, but not any class or collective proceedings.

Moreover, a class action is “a procedural devicе for resolving the claims of absent parties on a representative basis” rather than a separate or distinct “claim.” . The broad language of the Agreement is not limited to claims. Varela surrendered his right to bring all “lawsuit[s] or other civil action[s] or proceeding[s].” (emphasis added). Additionally, the Agreement authorizes the Arbitrator to “awаrd any remedy allowed by applicable law.” Those remedies include class-wide relief.

Because the Agreement is capable of two reasonable constructions, the district court correctly found ambiguity. State contract principles require construction against Lamps Plus, the drafter of the adhesive Agreement. By aсcepting the construction posited by Varela—that the ambiguous Agreement permits class arbitration—the district court properly found the necessary “contractual basis” for agreement to class arbitration. .

We AFFIRM and VACATE the stay of arbitration.

FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

I respectfully dissent because, as I see it, the Agreement was not ambiguous. We should not allow Varela to enlist us in this palpable evasion of .

Notes

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not ‍​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​​‌​‌​‌​‍precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Read the detailed case summary