Perez v. Bath & Body Works, LLC
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-05606
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Perez v. Bath & Body Works, LLC, Judge Freeman denied without prejudice arbitration because the submitted terms did not establish an agreement.
Andrea Brooks and Carmen Perez were the plaintiffs affected by the motion. Bath & Body Works, LLC and Bath & Body Works, Inc. may file a renewed motion to compel arbitration, but the court did not decide whether arbitration is ultimately required.
What happened
Perez v. Bath & Body Works, LLC concerns Bath & Body Works’ request to require Andrea Brooks to arbitrate her claims under the My Bath & Body Works loyalty program terms. The company also asked for information about whether Carmen Perez belonged to that program.
The court found that the company had not shown an arbitration agreement existed when Brooks joined the program and bought the products at issue. The terms submitted with the motion took effect after those events, and the court would not consider additional versions submitted for the first time with the reply papers.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the motion to compel arbitration without prejudice, allowing the company to file a renewed motion. The court did not decide whether the claims must ultimately be arbitrated and did not issue a formal order on the requested information about Perez.
The detailed version
- Perez v. Bath & Body Works, LLC · No. 5:21-cv-05606
- Beth Freeman
- Jan. 27, 2022
Background
Defendants Bath & Body Works, LLC and Bath & Body Works, Inc. moved to compel arbitration. They argued that Plaintiff Andrea Brooks had agreed to arbitrate her claims through an arbitration provision in the terms and conditions of the My Bath & Body Works loyalty program, which was allegedly used to purchase the products at issue. The defendants also requested limited jurisdictional discovery—information intended to help determine whether Plaintiff Carmen Perez belonged to the same loyalty program.
Court’s Analysis
The party seeking arbitration bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an agreement to arbitrate exists. The motion papers stated that Brooks allegedly registered for the loyalty program in September 2017 and purchased the products in December 2018. But the terms and conditions attached to the motion did not take effect until October 15, 2019. The court therefore found that the moving papers did not meet the defendants’ burden.
The defendants submitted additional versions of the terms and conditions with their reply brief. The court declined to consider evidence submitted for the first time on reply and stated that the relevant versions had to be submitted with the opening papers. Because the relevant terms were not properly before the court, it expressly did not decide whether the claims were subject to arbitration.
As to the request concerning Perez, the court found it unnecessary to issue a formal order because Bath & Body Works said it intended to serve an interrogatory seeking information about whether Perez belonged to the loyalty program.
Disposition
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the motion to compel arbitration without prejudice to filing a renewed motion. The order did not decide the ultimate arbitrability of the claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.