DZ RESERVE and CAIN MAXWELL (d/b/a Max Martialis), individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. META PLATFORMS, INC.

DISCUSSION

5

I. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR ARBITRATION MOTIONS AND THE EXISTENCE

6 OF AN APPLICABLE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT HERE 7 Meta seeks arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. Dkt. 8 No. 472. The FAA’s “overarching purpose . . . is to ensure the enforcement of arbitration 9 agreements according to their terms so as to facilitate streamlined proceedings.” AT&T Mobility 10 LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 344 (2011). Under Section 4 of the FAA, the Court’s role is 11 generally “limited to determining whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and, if so, whether 12 the agreement encompasses the dispute ate issue.” Lifescan, Inc. v. Premier Diabetic Servs., Inc., 13 363 F.3d 1010, 1012 (9th Cir. 2004). “If the party seeking to compel arbitration establishes both 14 factors, the district court ‘must order the parties to proceed to arbitration only in accordance with 15 the terms of their agreement.’” McBurnie v. Acceptance Now, LLC, 643 F. Supp. 3d 1041, 1045 16 (N.D. Cal. 2022) (quoting Lifescan, 363 F.3d at 1012), aff’d sub nom. in pertinent part, McBurnie 17 v. RAC Acceptance East, LLC, 95 F.4th 1188…