Clements

I. BACKGROUND

1 On January 19, 2024, the Court issued an Order granting T-Mobile’s motion to compel 2 arbitration and dismiss. See Prior Order. The Court found that the 2019 Arbitration Agreement 3 between Clements and T-Mobile was valid, and the claims asserted in Clements’s amended 4 complaint fell within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement. Id. at 8–11. Though Clements did 5 not file an opposition, the Court considered and rejected Clements’s invalidity arguments raised in 6 his complaint and prior filings—namely, the Court rejected Clements’s argument that he did not 7 mutually assent to the 2019 Arbitration Agreement given that it lacked a provision to guide 8 conflicts between the Terms and Conditions and the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) 9 Rules. Id. The Court examined the Arbitration Agreement, as well as relevant Ninth Circuit and 10 California state law authority, and found that the lack of provision guiding conflicts of law did not 11 render the Arbitration Agreement invalid for lack of mutual assent. Id. 12 As indicated above, Clements did not file an opposition to T-Mobile’s motion. Clements 13 also did not request leave to file an untimely…