Lopez
Lopez v. Dave Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KRYSTAL LOPEZ, Case No. 22-cv-04160-VC
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
v. COMPEL ARBITRATION
DAVE INC., Re: Dkt. Nos. 18, 25, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34 Defendant.
The motion to compel arbitration and dismiss for improper venue is denied.1 “In determining whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate a particular dispute, federal courts apply state-law principles of contract formation.” Berman v. Freedom Financial Network, LLC, 30 F.4th 849, 855 (9th Cir. 2022). As the party seeking to compel arbitration, Dave “bears ‘the burden of proving the existence of an agreement to arbitrate by a preponderance of the evidence.’” Norcia v. Samsung Telecommunications Am., LLC, 845 F.3d 1279, 1283 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., 771 F.3d 559, 565 (9th Cir. 2014)). Dave has not established that Lopez had actual notice of the arbitration agreement, and so it must establish that she was on “inquiry notice.” Berman, 30 F.4th at 856. “[A]n enforceable contract will be found based on an inquiry notice theory only if: (1) the website provides…