N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT HOAI DANG, on be ha l f of him se lf a nd a ll othe rs sim ila

rly situa te d, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. SAM SUNG ELEC TR ONIC S C O., LTD.; SAM SUNG ELEC TR ONIC S AM E R IC A, INC .; SAM SUNG TELEC OM M UNIC ATIONS AM ER IC A, LLC , De fe nda

n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-16768 D.C . No. 5:14-c v-00530-LHK
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia L uc y H. Koh, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 17, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd B EA a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. Hoa i Da ng a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting them otion to c om pe l
arbitration file d by

Sam sung Te le c om

m unic a tions Am e ric a , LLC , Sam sung



# FIL ED JAN 19 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Ele c tronic s Am e ric a , Inc ., a n d Sam sung Ele c tronic s C o ., Ltd. (c o lle c tive ly ,

“ Sa m sung” ). W e have subje c t m a tte r jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. The distric t c ourt e rre d in gra nting Sa m sung’ s m o tion to c om

pe l a rbitration be c a use Da ng a nd Sam sung did not form an a gre e m e nt to a

rbitrate unde r C a lifornia la w. Se e AT& T Te c hs., Inc . v . C ommc ’ns W

ork e rs of Am. , 475 U.S. 643, 648 (1986). Da

ng did not e xpre ssly

a gre e to the arbitration provision
c onta ine d in the “ Standa

rd Lim ite d W arra nty , ” whic h wa s inc lude d in the broc hure
e ntitle d “ Im

porta nt Inform a t i on for the Sam sung SPH-L710” c onta ine d in the Ga la xy SIII box. Nor did Da

ng a c c e pt Sa

m sung’ s offe r by fa iling to opt out of the
arbitration provision be c a u se an offe re e ’ s sile nc e doe s not c onstitute a c c e pta nc e unde r C a lifornia

la w, Golde n Eagle

Ins. C o. v . Fore most Ins. C

o. , 20 C a l. App. 4th 1372, 1385 (1993), a

nd the inc l usion of a

n a rbitration provision in a

produc t box is not a n e x c e ption to this ge

ne ra l rule , N

orc ia v
. Samsung Te le c omms. Am. , No. 14- 16994, — F.3d — (9th C ir. 2017). M ore ove r, e ve n if Da n g c ould be bound in
c e rta in c irc um sta

nc e s by the fa ilure to opt out of te rm s inc lude d in a

produc t box unde r C a lifornia

la w, no c ontra c t wa s form e d in this c a se be c a use Sam sung did not provide Da

ng with a de q

uate notic e tha

t the inform a tion broc hure c onta ine d a n offe r to e nte r into a bila

te ra l c ontra c t. Se e id. ; se e also W indsor Mills, Inc . v . C ollins & Aik man C orp. , 25 C a l. App. 3d 987, 993 (1972). Although the ba c k of
2the G a la xy SIII box gave Da ng notic e tha

t the box c onta ine d a

“ warra n ty disc la im e r a ssoc iate d with SAFE,” a se lle r’ s offe r of a

wa rra nty doe s not c re a te a binding bila

te ra l c ontra c t with a

buy e r. N orc ia , No. 14-16994, —

F.3d at — . Dang did not c onc e d e tha t he form e d a

n a gre e m e nt to a

rbitrate with Sa m sung in his ope

rative c om

pla int. Da

ng’ s “ am e nde d

c om pla int supe rse d e s the origina l, the latte r be ing tre a te d the re a fte r a s non-e xiste nt,” Loux v . Rhay , 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th C ir. 1967), ov e rrule d on othe r grounds by Lac e y v . Maric opa C

ty . , 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th C ir. 2012) (e n ba nc ), and Da

ng a rgue d in his opposition to Sa m sung’ s m otion to c om pe l tha t the pa rtie s fa ile d

to form an a gre e m e nt to
arbitrate . RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D

3