Perez

Perez v. DirecTV Group Holdings, LLC

Good Law
251 F. Supp. 3d 1328·2017 WL 1836357·2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114497
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaMay 1, 2017CASE NO. 8:16-cv-1440-JLS-DFMxCalifornia9,315 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Staton, J.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION (Docs. 18, 20)

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Doneyda Perez brings this action alleging that DirecTV and the other Defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud small, minority-owned businesses by selling them commercial satellite cable television service, only to later claim that the businesses were not authorized to display DirecTV in a commercial establishment, and then threaten the business owners with litigation to extract a settlement payment. Defendants DirecTV Group Holdings, LLC, Lonstein Law Offices, P.C., and Julie Cohen Lonstein move to compel Perez to arbitrate her claims.

II. BACKGROUND

The manner in which the transaction took place between DirecTV and Perez is significant in determining whether the parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate, and whether that agreement is valid; therefore, the Court describes below Perez’s allegations as to the nature of the transaction, a description which, for the purposes of this motion, DirecTV does not materially contest.

A. DirecTV Solicits Perez’s Business

Perez owns Oneida’s Beauty and Barber Salon in Garden Grove, California. (Perez Decl. ¶ 2, Doc. 26-8.) On June 5,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.