Chad Carlsen v. Global Client Solutions, LLC

MEMORANDUM

Defendants-Appellants Global Client Solutions, LLC and Rocky Mountain Bank & Trust appeal the district court’s denial of their motions to compel arbitration. We have jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 16 (a)(1)(B), and we affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s decision on a motion to compel arbitration, and we review the underlying factual findings for clear error. Balen v. Holland Am. Line Inc., 583 F.3d 647, 652 (9th Cir.2009). Under Washington law, whether there was mutual assent to be bound by a contract is generally treated as a question of fact. Keystone Land & Dev. Co. v. Xerox Corp., 152 Wash.2d 171 , 94 P.3d 945 , 949 n. 10 (2004).

The district court did not clearly err in finding that there was no agreement to arbitrate. The Special Purpose Account Application signed by Plaintiffs-Appellees, the Carlsens and the Pophams, did not contain an arbitration clause. The Account Agreement and Disclosure Statement contained an arbitration clause, but it was not sent to Plaintiffs until after they signed the Application, and the district court was not presented with evidence showing that the Agreement was reasonably available to them when they signed. See Mattingly…