Johnson v. Charter Communications, Inc

Background

Loretta Johnson alleged that, when she called Spectrum in July 2020 to sign up for cable and internet service, Spectrum recorded her calls without her consent in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. In July 2021, she filed a proposed class action in Alameda County Superior Court against Spectrum and its parent company, Charter Communications, Inc. The defendants removed the case to federal court.

Johnson also separately signed up for Spectrum’s services through its website. In doing so, she agreed to Spectrum’s Residential General Terms and Conditions of Service. Those terms included an arbitration provision requiring the parties to arbitrate disputes arising from or related to the terms, services, equipment, or marketing of Spectrum’s services. The agreement also included a waiver of the right to bring claims as class actions and stated that the arbitrator would decide “all issues,” including the scope of the arbitration clause.

Court’s Analysis

The Federal Arbitration Act generally makes written arbitration agreements enforceable. A court ordinarily considers whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and whether it covers the dispute. But the court or an arbitrator decides that question only according to the parties’ agreement; the parties must clearly and unmistakably assign that decision to the arbitrator.

The defendants argued that the agreement clearly and unmistakably delegated questions about arbitrability to the arbitrator. Johnson argued that the delegation applied only to claims already brought in arbitration, not claims first filed in court. The court rejected that reading, finding that the agreement’s text and overall requirement to use arbitration showed that arbitrability questions were assigned to the arbitrator.

Johnson also argued that the agreement’s reference to a court finding that a claim was outside the arbitration provision conflicted with the delegation clause. The court concluded that the provision addressed situations in which a court handled a claim outside the agreement and required the parties to waive a jury trial in those circumstances. It did not conflict with the delegation of arbitrability questions to the arbitrator.

Ruling

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted Spectrum’s motion to compel arbitration. The court did not decide the parties’ remaining disputes about whether the agreement was valid or whether it covered Johnson’s claims because the arbitrator was assigned to decide the gateway arbitrability issues. The court denied as moot Spectrum’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The action was stayed while arbitration proceeds. The parties were ordered to file joint status reports every 90 days and to notify the court within 48 hours after arbitration concludes. The clerk was directed to administratively close the case, and the order terminated Docket Nos. 35 and 36.