Batory
Batory v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Batory, a former Sears employee, appeals the district court’s ruling that an arbitration agreement he entered with Sears is valid and enforceable. Sears cross-appeals the district court’s ruling that Batory has not waived his right to arbitration under that agreement.
A. Enforceability of the Arbitration Agreement
On appeal, Batory asserts that the PreDispute Agreement (“Agreement”) is unenforceable on any of four grounds: (i) as an adhesion contract; (ii) as lacking in mutuality; (iii) as unsigned by Sears; and (iv) as an illusory contract. The enforceability of the Agreement is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), which provides that it “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2 (2004). Applying Arizona contract law, we take each challenge in turn, and find merit in only the first. See Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681, 687 , 116 S.Ct. 1652 , 134 L.Ed.2d 902 (1996); Ferguson v. Countrywide Credit Indus., Inc., 298 F.3d 778, 782 (9th Cir.2002).
1. Adhesion contract