Alvarez Garcia v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Background

Alex Alvarez Garcia alleged that Experian Information Solutions, Inc. mixed his credit file with another consumer. He brought claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act. Experian filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was fully briefed and scheduled for a June 27, 2024 hearing.

Experian also moved for a protective order and to stay discovery and scheduling deadlines while the arbitration motion was pending. Alvarez Garcia did not dispute that the agreement, if applicable to him, would require arbitration. Instead, he argued that Experian had not shown that he agreed to the arbitration agreement and objected to Experian’s evidence. He also argued that a stay would prejudice him and be inefficient.

Court’s analysis

The court applied a two-part test used in the district to decide whether discovery should be stayed while a potentially case-dispositive motion is pending. First, the motion must potentially resolve the entire case or the issue for which discovery is sought. Second, the motion must be capable of being decided without additional discovery. The court also took a preliminary look at the arbitration motion’s merits to determine whether a stay was justified.

The court found that Experian had presented substantial arguments that Alvarez Garcia was bound by the arbitration agreement. Experian’s filings and supporting declaration described how it contended Alvarez Garcia enrolled in its CreditWorks program and agreed to the relevant terms. The court cited decisions finding similar arbitration agreements binding and stated that recent Ninth Circuit authority supported enforcing clickwrap agreements in this context. It found that Alvarez Garcia’s evidentiary objections appeared weak at that stage.

The court concluded that the motion to compel arbitration was reasonably likely to dispose of the entire case. It also found that the motion could be decided without additional discovery. The court rejected Alvarez Garcia’s argument that a stay would be prejudicial or inefficient, explaining that, if arbitration were ordered, the dispute would proceed in arbitration and discovery responsibility would lie with the arbitrators.

Disposition

The court granted Experian’s Motion to Stay. Discovery in the case was stayed until the court issued an order on Experian’s Motion to Compel. This order did not decide whether arbitration ultimately was required; it decided only whether discovery should pause while that motion was pending.