AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiff appealed against the district court's order which compelled arbitration on all claims between her and the Defendants.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the delegation clause within the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and unenforceable for the same reasons as the arbitration agreement as a whole. Additionally, claimed that she would not be able to obtain attorney fees and costs for time spent litigating delegated threshold issues before the arbitrator (paras 2).
• Defendants: Supported the district court's order compelling arbitration and opposed the Plaintiff's arguments against the delegation clause and the arbitration agreement (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the delegation clause within the arbitration agreement is specifically unconscionable and unenforceable.
• Whether it is unconscionable for an arbitrator, rather than a court, to resolve the threshold issue of the enforceability of the delegation clause and the arbitration agreement.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order compelling arbitration on all claims (para 3).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Jacqueline R. Medina, Jennifer L. Attrep, and Jane B. Yohalem, concluded that the Plaintiff's challenge to the delegation clause, on the same grounds as her challenge to the arbitration agreement as a whole, did not constitute a specific challenge. The Court referenced a recent decision to support this conclusion and noted that the Plaintiff's concerns regarding attorney fees and costs for litigating threshold issues before an arbitrator were premature, as the merits of her unconscionability challenge had not yet been decided. The Court emphasized that the Plaintiff would have an opportunity to raise these matters before an arbitrator. The decision to affirm the district court's order was based on the Plaintiff's failure to clearly point out errors in fact or law in the Court's initial proposed disposition (paras 2-3).