Siert
Siert v. Spiffy Franchising, LLC.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 ALINA SIERT, et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-01771-EJD
Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
v. COMPEL ARBITRATION
SPIFFY FRANCHISING, LLC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 24 Defendants.
Franchisee Plaintiffs Alina Siert and A4H, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) bring claims against Franchisor Defendants Spiffy Franchising, LLC, Get Spiffy, Inc., Scot Wingo, Karl Murphy, and Connor Finnegan (“Defendants”) arising from Defendants’ alleged fraudulent business practices and misrepresentations. Compl., ECF No. 1. Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Mot., ECF No. 24. This motion is fully briefed. Opp’n, ECF No. 28; Reply, ECF No. 34. Upon careful consideration of the relevant documents, the Court finds this matter suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b). For the reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and…