Jo Ellen Peters v. Amazon Services
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Jo Ellen Peters and Ken Lane appeal the district court’s order compelling arbitration of their claims against Amazon Services LLC (“Amazon”). We have jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 16 (a)(3). We review de novo the district court’s order compelling arbitration. Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Mantor, 417 F.3d 1060, 1063 (9th Cir. 2005).
The district court did not err in concluding that Lane and Peters agreed to arbitrate their disputes with Amazon. The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provides that arbitration agreements “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable,” 9 U.S.C. § 2 , and the FAA mandates that courts compel arbitration as to issues encompassed by valid arbitration agreements, Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 218 , 105 S.Ct. 1238 , 84 L.Ed.2d 158 (1985). Lane and Peters agreed to Amazon’s Business Solutions Agreement (“BSA”), which contains an unambiguous agreement to arbitrate “[a]ny dispute ... or claim relating in any way” to the BSA or use of Amazon’s services. The BSA, as “a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce,” is subject to the FAA and must be enforced. See 9 U.S.C. § 2 .