Jane Roes v. Sfbsc Management, LLC

MEMORANDUM

SFBSC Management, LLC (“BSC”) appeals from the district court’s denial of its motion to compel arbitration. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 16 (a)(1)(B). Because BSC was not a party to the performer contracts and failed to establish that it has standing to enforce the arbitration clause, we affirm. See Britton v. Co-op Banking Grp., 916 F.2d 1405 , 1413 n.9 (9th Cir. 1990) (standing is “always a threshold issue” when evaluating a motion to compel arbitration).

1. Given BSC’s denials and the contradictory evidence submitted in connection with its motion to compel arbitration, we decline to treat the allegations in the complaint as “judicial admissions” that establish BSC’s standing to compel arbitration as a matter of law. As the party seeking to compel arbitration, BSC had the burden under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) to show (1) the existence of a valid, written agreement to arbitrate; and, if it exists, (2) that the agreement to arbitrate encompasses the dispute at issue. Ashbey v. Archstone Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 785 F.3d 1320, 1323 (9th Cir. 2015). While the amended complaint contains concluso-ry allegations that BSC acted as an “agent” of the…