Sifuentes v. Dropbox, Inc., No. 4:2020cv07908 - Document 57 (N.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING 40 MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION. Case Management Statement due by 7/12/2022 and Initial Case Management Conference set for 7/19/2022 02:00 PM. The July 19th proceeding will be held by AT&T Conference Line. The parties are advised that in the event of an audio problem, counsel should be prepared to attend the hearing via Zoom conference at the Courts direction. The court circulates the following conference number to allow the equivalent of a public hearing by tele phone.For conference line information, see: https://apps.cand.uscourts.gov/telhrg/ All counsel, members of the public and press please use the following dial-in information below to access the conference line: Dial In: 888-808-6929Access Code: 6064255The Court may be in session with proceedings in progress when you connect to the conference line. Therefore, mute your phone if possible and wait for the Court to address you before speaking on the line. For call clarit y, parties shall NOT use speaker phone or earpieces for these calls, and where at all possible, parties shall use landlines. The parties are further advised to ensure that the Court can hear and understand them clearly before speaking at length. PLEASE NOTE: Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is a bsolutely prohibited. See General Order 58 at Paragraph III. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 6/29/2022. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/29/2022)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sifuentes v. Dropbox, Inc. Doc. 57 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAVID ANGEL SIFUENTES, Plaintiff, 8 9 v. 10 DROPBOX, INC., ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION Re: Dkt. No. 40 Defendant. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 20-cv-07908-HSG 12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant Dropbox, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration, 14 briefing for which is complete. See Dkt. Nos. 40 (“Mot.”), 42 (“Opp.”), 47 (“Reply”).1 The Court 15 heard oral argument on the motion on January 20, 2022. See Dkt. No. 54. For the reasons 16 detailed below, the Court DENIES the motion. 17 I. BACKGROUND Pro Se Plaintiff David Angel Sifuentes III filed this action against Defendant on November 18 19 9, 2020. Dkt. No. 1. He then filed an amended complaint on January 21, 2021. Dkt. No. 10 20 (“Am. Comp.”). Plaintiff alleges that his Dropbox account was compromised in a 2012 data 21 breach, which put his personal information at risk. Id. at 2. Plaintiff further alleges that Dropbox 22 failed to inform him of the breach, and that his personal information has been stolen and used by 23 “hackers and cyber criminals.” Id. Plaintiff asserts that as a result of the data breach his bank 24 account has been made vulnerable, he has to frequently change his log-in information for various 25 accounts, and he worries that his personal information could be used to commit crimes. Id. at 2-3. 26 27 28 1 Defendant also submitted a color copy of Exhibit B to the Declaration of Wendy Weber in support of Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Dkt. No. 53. Plaintiff filed an additional, unsolicited opposition on February 8, 2022, Dkt. No. 55, but the Court finds that those arguments do not change the outcome of the motion. Dockets.Justia.com 1 On the basis of these facts, Plaintiff brings multiple causes of action, including claims for invasion 2 of privacy by public disclosure of private facts, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional 3 distress, and conversion in addition to violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair and 4 Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, California Civil Code section 1798.29, and Michigan 5 Law section 445.72. Id. at 1. Plaintiff seeks $550,000 in damages. Id. at 3. 6 United States District Court Northern District of California 7 II. LEGAL STANDARD The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., sets forth a policy favoring 8 arbitration agreements and establishes that a written arbitration agreement is “valid, irrevocable, 9 and enforceable.” 9 U.S.C. § 2; Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1621 (2018) (noting 10 federal policy favoring arbitration); Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 11 U.S. 1, 24 (1983) (same). The FAA allows that a party “aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, 12 or refusal of another to arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration may petition any United 13 States district court . . . for an order directing that . . . arbitration proceed in the manner provided 14 for in such agreement.” 9 U.S.C. § 4. This federal policy is “simply to ensure the enforceability, 15 according to their terms, of private agreements to arbitrate.” Volt Info. Scis., Inc. v. Bd. of 16 Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 476 (1989). Courts must resolve any 17 “ambiguities as to the scope of the arbitration clause itself . . . in favor of arbitration.” Id. 18 When a party moves to compel arbitration, the court must determine (1) “whether a valid 19 arbitration agreement exists” and (2) “whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue.” 20 Lifescan, Inc. v. Premier Diabetic Servs., Inc., 363 F.3d 1010, 1012 (9th Cir. 2004). The 21 agreement may also delegate gateway issues to an arbitrator, in which case the court’s role is 22 limited to determining whether there is clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to 23 arbitrate arbitrability. See Brennan v. Opus Bank, 796 F.3d 1125, 1130 (9th Cir. 2015). In either 24 instance, “before referring a dispute to an arbitrator, the court determines whether a valid 25 arbitration agreement exists.” Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524, 26 530 (2019) (citing 9 U.S.C. § 2). 27 28 2 1 2 3 III. DISCUSSION A. Alleged Arbitration Agreement Defendant contends that Plaintiff assented to terms of service (“TOS”) that require arbitration. Defendant represents that, according to its records, Plaintiff signed up for Dropbox on 4 5 6 7 8 9 December 15, 2011. Dkt. No. 40-1 Decl. of Wendy Weber 10 (“Weber Decl.”). Defendant explains that when Plaintiff created his Dropbox account, he would have been “required to affirmatively check a box stating ‘I agree to Dropbox Terms of Service’ to affirmatively indicate [his] agreement to the Dropbox TOS and further press a button stating ‘Create account.’” See id. 6. According to Defendant, the “TOS were visibly hyperlinked and set off by blue font color,” and the hyperlink would have taken Plaintiff to the July 6, 2011 TOS. Id.; see Dkt. No. 40-1 10 Exhibit E. Defendant asserts that if Plaintiff did not click the checkbox and sign-up button, the United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 registration process would have ended and he would not have been able to use Dropbox’s platform. Weber Decl. 6. Defendant maintains that Plaintiff has continuously had a Dropbox account since he signed 14 15 16 up on December 15, 2011. Id. 10. Defendant represents that it has modified its terms of service twelve times since 2011. Id. 11-21; Mot. at 9. Defendant’s position is that Plaintiff assented to each of these modifications by continuing to use the Dropbox service. Reply at 9. In a March 24, 17 2014 modification, Dropbox added an arbitration provision to its terms of service. Mot. at 8. 18 Dropbox asserts that it notified users, including Plaintiff, of this change in an email, with 19 20 hyperlinks leading to the new terms of service and Defendant’s blog, as indicated by differently colored text. See Reply at 6; Dkt. No. 53 Exhibit A. The email also included multiple bullet 21 points describing changes being made to the TOS, including: 22 23 24 25 26 We’re adding an arbitration section to our updated Terms of Service. Arbitration is a quick and efficient way to resolve disputes, and it provides an alternative to things like state or federal courts where the process could take months or even years. If you don’t want to agree to arbitration, you can easily opt-out via an online form, within 30days of these Terms becoming effective. This form, and other details, are available on our blog. 27 Dkt. No. 40-1 Exhibit B. 28 Defendant further contends that all terms of service since March 24, 2014 have included 3 1 substantially the same mandatory arbitration provision. Reply at 9. The September 24, 2019 2 terms of service, which were in effect when Plaintiff filed his Complaint, contain the following 3 arbitration provision: 4 7 We Both Agree to Arbitrate. You and Dropbox agree to resolve any claims relating to these Terms or the Services through final and binding arbitration by a single arbitrator, except as set forth under Exceptions to Agreement to Arbitrate below. This includes disputes arising out of or relating to interpretation or application of this “Mandatory Arbitration Provisions” section, including its enforceability, revocability, or validity. 8 Dkt. No. 40-1 Exhibit P; see also Mot. at 9. The September 24, 2019 TOS includes a 5 6 9 provision for opting out of arbitration: 10 Opt-out of Agreement to Arbitration. You can decline this agreement to arbitrate by clicking here and submitting the opt-out form within 30 days of first registering your account.2 However, if you agreed to a previous version of these Terms that allowed you to opt out of arbitration, your previous choice to opt out or not opt out remains binding. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Dkt. No. 40-1 Exhibit P. It also includes a list of exceptions to the agreement to arbitrate, 14 such as when a party brings a lawsuit solely for injunctive relief, that do not apply here. See id. 15 Plaintiff does not contest Defendant’s representations about the design and content of the 16 website or the Terms of Service. See generally Opp. Plaintiff also does not contest that he agreed 17 to the July 6, 2011 TOS. See Opp. at 1-2. However, Plaintiff argues that the July 6, 2011 TOS 18 does not contain an arbitration provision, and that he never agreed to any later terms of service. 19 20 21 22 See id. at 1. Plaintiff contends that he “never read, clicked on[, or] accepted any updated terms and condition [sic] including any emails sent concerning any changes to the (TOS)’s and the arbitration agreement.” Id. B. 23 Validity of Arbitration Agreement When the parties contest whether an agreement was formed, the party seeking to compel 24 arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of the agreement by a preponderance of the 25 evidence. See Norcia v. Samsung Telecomms. Am., LLC, 845 F.3d 1279, 1283 (9th Cir. 2017). 26 Conversely, the party opposing arbitration is entitled to the benefit of all reasonable doubts and 27 28 2 The words “clicking here” appear to be a hyperlink. 4 1 inferences. See Three Valleys Mun. Water Dist. v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 925 F.2d 1136, 1141 (9th 2 Cir. 1991). Therefore, a court may find that an agreement to arbitrate exists as a matter of law 3 “[o]nly when there is no genuine issue of fact concerning the formation of the agreement.” Id. 4 (citation and quotation omitted). In determining whether an agreement was formed, the Court applies “general state-law United States District Court Northern District of California 5 6 principles of contract interpretation,” without a presumption in favor of arbitrability.3 See 7 Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. City of Reno, 747 F.3d 733, 742 (9th Cir. 2014) (quotation omitted). 8 The Ninth Circuit has recognized that while the rise of internet-based commerce “has exposed 9 courts to many new situations, it has not fundamentally changed the principles of contract.” 10 Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., 763 F.3d 1171, 1175 (9th Cir. 2014). One of those principles is 11 that in order for a contract to be formed there must be mutual manifestation of assent. Id. Courts generally evaluate online contracts as falling into one of two categories: 12 13 (1) “clickwrap” agreements where a user is presented with the terms and conditions and must click 14 on a button or box to indicate that he agrees before he may continue, which courts generally 15 enforce; and (2) “browsewrap” agreements where the website’s terms and conditions are provided 16 to users via a hyperlink at the bottom of a webpage and a user’s assent to the terms is assumed by 17 his continued use of the website, which courts often view with skepticism. See id. at 1175–77. 18 Online contracts can also be some blend of the two. Id. at 1176-77. Regardless, “the onus [is] on 19 website owners to put users on notice of the terms to which they wish to bind consumers.” Id. at 20 1179. 21 i. Plaintiff assented to the 2011 TOS. Plaintiff’s assent to the January 6, 2011 TOS falls on the “clickwrap” end of the spectrum. 22 23 He clicked a box stating, “I agree to Dropbox Terms of Service”, and the July 6, 2011 TOS was 24 hyperlinked next to that checkbox. See Weber Decl. 6, Exhibit A. Plaintiff had clear notice, 25 and took physical action to manifest his assent. Plaintiff does not contest that he agreed to the 26 27 28 3 Here, all relevant versions of the TOS contain a California choice-of-law provision, including the July 6, 2011 TOS. 5 1 2011 TOS at the time he created a Dropbox account, see Opp. at 1-2, and the Court finds that there 2 was a mutual manifestation of assent to the 2011 TOS. Importantly, however, the 2011 TOS did 3 not have a mandatory arbitration provision. 4 United States District Court Northern District of California 5 ii. Defendants fail to show that Plaintiff had notice of the later terms of service. Plaintiff denies that he agreed to the later terms of service that added mandatory arbitration 6 provisions. Opp. at 1. Defendant, on the other hand, contends that Plaintiff assented to the 7 subsequent versions by continuing to use Defendant’s service. Dkt. No. 47 at 7; see also Dkt. No. 8 40 at 9 n.2. Assent by continued use of a web service is a traditional feature of browsewrap 9 agreements. Nguyen, 763 F.3d at 1176 (“The defining feature of browsewrap agreements is that 10 the user can continue to use the website or its services without visiting the page hosting the 11 browsewrap agreement or even knowing that such a webpage exists.”) (citation omitted). “Courts 12 are more reluctant to enforce browsewrap agreements because consumers are frequently left 13 unaware that contractual terms were even offered, much less that continued use of the website will 14 be deemed to manifest acceptance of those terms.” Berman v. Freedom Financial Network, LLC, 15 30 F.4th 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2022). 16 The validity of an online agreement depends on whether the user had actual or constructive 17 notice of the website’s terms. See Nguyen, 763 F.3d at 1177. “Unless the website operator can 18 show that a consumer has actual knowledge of the agreement, an enforceable contract will be 19 found based on an inquiry notice theory only if: (1) the website provides reasonably conspicuous 20 notice of the terms to which the consumer will be bound; and (2) the consumer takes some action, 21 such as clicking a button or checking a box, that unambiguously manifests his or her assent to 22 those terms.” Berman, 30 F.4th at 856. 23 Here, Plaintiff denies that he ever agreed to arbitrate, read any updated terms of service, or 24 opened any emails from Defendant about these issues. Opp. at 2-3. Defendant explains that it had 25 a policy of mass emailing its many subscribers about updated terms of service, see Dkt. No. 40-1 ¶ 26 7, but there is nothing in the record to suggest that Plaintiff saw or read the email, such as a read 27 28 6 1 receipt reflecting that Plaintiff opened the email.4 The Court finds that Defendant has not shown 2 by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiff had actual notice of the updated terms of service. 3 See Norcia, LLC, 845 F.3d at 1283. To show that Plaintiff had inquiry notice, Defendant must show that he was provided United States District Court Northern District of California 4 5 reasonably conspicuous notice of the contract terms and unambiguously manifested his assent. 6 See Berman, 30 F.4th at 856 . “[O]nline providers have complete control over the design of their 7 websites,” and therefore have the responsibility to put users on notice of the terms to which they 8 wish to bind consumers. Id. at 857 (citations omitted). Defendant acknowledges that between 9 2011 and 2019 it modified its terms of service no less than twelve times, and contends that it sent 10 an email to Plaintiff in 2014 explaining the addition of a mandatory arbitration clause. Reply at 9. 11 There is nothing in the record to suggest that Plaintiff could not use the service until he indicated 12 his assent, that he would have been advised of new terms and conditions while using Defendant’s 13 services, or that Defendant ever tracked whether Plaintiff had opened its email. Even if the email 14 alone could be considered “reasonably conspicuous notice,” Plaintiff took no action to 15 unambiguously manifest his assent. See Berman, 30 F.4th at 856 (requiring the consumer to 16 “take[] some action, such as clicking a button or checking a box” in order to form an enforceable 17 contract under inquiry notice theory). Defendant essentially argues that it contracted for the right to change the terms at will 18 19 because the 2011 TOS contains a provision stating that Defendant “may revise these Terms from 20 time to time” and that continuing to use the service constitutes agreement to any revised terms. 21 See Reply at 6; Dkt. No. 40-1 Exhibit E. Defendant’s argument misses the point. Given the 22 complete lack of evidence of notice within Defendant’s service itself, Plaintiff’s ongoing use of 23 the service is irrelevant to determining whether he had actual or constructive notice of the post- 24 2011 terms of service. Moreover, the 2011 TOS essentially disavows any obligation to alert 25 Plaintiff to changes: “If a revision, in our sole discretion, is material we will notify you (for 26 example via email to the email address associated with your account.” See Dkt. No. 40-1 Exhibit 27 28 4 Defendant also presented no evidence showing an email sent specifically to Plaintiff. 7 1 E. But Ninth Circuit law is clear that it is a website owner’s duty to show clear notice and assent. The Court finds that Defendant has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that 2 3 Plaintiff had actual or inquiry notice of the updated terms of service. See Norcia, LLC, 845 F.3d 4 at 1283. Without actual or inquiry notice, there was no manifestation of mutual assent, and the 5 later terms of service do not impose an enforceable agreement to arbitrate. 6 IV. 7 The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. The Court further SETS 8 an initial telephonic case management conference for July 19, 2022 at 2:00 p.m and DIRECTS 9 the parties to submit a joint case management statement by July 12, 2022. All parties and counsel 10 United States District Court Northern District of California CONCLUSION shall use the following dial-in information to access the call: 11 Dial-In: 888-808-6929; 12 Passcode: 6064255 13 For call clarity, parties shall NOT use speaker phone or earpieces for these calls, and where 14 15 16 17 18 at all possible, parties shall use landlines. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6/29/2022 ______________________________________ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
