N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DEREK SNAR

R , on be ha lf of him se lf, the ge ne ra l public , a

n d those sim ila

rly situa te d, Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. HRB TAX GR OUP, INC .; HR B DIGITAL LLC , De fe nda

n ts-Appe lla

nts, and H& R B LOC K, INC ., De fe nda n t. No. 19-17441 D.C . No. 3:19-c v-03610-SK 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 Sa llie Kim , M a gistra

te Judge , Pre s iding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 17, 2020 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED DEC 9 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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.B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd SC HR OEDER

and B ER ZON, C i rc uit Judge s . De fe nda nts (c olle c tive ly

“ HRB ” ) a

ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of HR B ’ s m otion to c om

pe l a rbitra tion. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 9 U.S.C . § 16(a )(1), an d we a ffirm . B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thehistory

of the c a se , we ne e d not re c ount it he re . W e re vie w the de nia l of a m otion to c om

pe l arbitration de novo. Blair v . Re nt-A-C e nte r, Inc . , 928 F.3d 819, 824 (9th C ir. 2019). I The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing HR B ’ s m otion to c om

pe l a rbitration.

“ In de te rm i ning theva lidity of a n a gre e m e nt to a

rbitrate , fe d e ra l c ourts ‘ should a pply ordina ry sta te -lawprinc i ple s tha

t gove rn the form ation of c ontra c ts.’ ” Fe rguson v . C

o untryw ideC

re dit Indus., Inc . , 298 F.3d 778, 782 (9th C ir. 2002) (quoting First Options of C hi., Inc . v . K

aplan , 514 U.S. 938, 944 (1995)). Unde r C a lifornia la w, a c ontra c t is une nforc e a

ble whe n it e ntire l y

wa ive s the right to se e k public injunc tive re lie f unde r any of the thre e c o nsum e r-prote c t ion sta tute s tha t m ake up Sna

rr’ s c a u se s of a c tion. Se e Mc Gill v . C itibank , N .A. , 393 P.3d 85, 93–94 (C a l. 2017). The a g re e m e nt be twe e n HR B and Sna

rr re quire s arbitration of a lm ost a ll c la im s a

nd sta t e s tha t a ny re lie f in a

rbitra tion “ m u st be individualiz e d to

2y ou a

nd will not a ffe c t

any othe r c lie nt,” in a ddition to wa iving a l l re pre se ntative c la im s or priva

te attorne y

ge ne ra l a c tions in a

ny forum . The a gre e m e nt, the re fore , wa ive s the right to se e k

public injunc tive re lie f in a ny forum . On a ppe a l, HR

B doe s not c onte st tha

t the a gre e m e nt wa ive s the right to public injunc tive re lie f. Inste a d, HR B argue s tha

t Sna rr’ s re que ste d

re lie f doe s not c onstitute public injunc tive re lie f. W e disa g re e . Unde r C a lifornia

la w, public injunc tive re lie f is re lie f “ that ha s ‘ the prim ary purpose and e ffe c t of’ prohibiting unla wful a c ts tha

t thre ate n future injury

to the ge ne ra l public .” Mc Gill, 3 9 3 P.3d a t 90 (quoting B roughton v . C igna He althplans , 988 P.2d 67, 74 (C a l. 1999)). B y c ontra s t, “ [r] e lie f that ha s the prim ary purpose or e ffe c t of re dre ssing or pre ve nting injury to a n individual pla intiff— or to a group of individuals simila

rly situa te d to the pla intiff— doe s not c onstitute public injunc tive re lie f.” Id . Snarr a lle ge s tha

t HR B viola te d thre e C a lifornia

c onsum e r-prote c tion sta tute s— the C onsum e r Le ga l R e m e die s Ac t (“ C LR A” ), C a l . C iv. C ode §§ 1750 e t se q.; the Unfa ir C om

pe tition La

w (“ UC L” ), C a l. B us. & Prof. C ode §§ 17200 e t se q.; a nd the fa lse a d

ve rtising la

w, id. §§ 17500 e t se q.—

ba se d on HR

B ’ s m arke ting a

nd ope ra ting of its public ly -a c c e ssible tax-filing web pa ge s. He se e ks to ge ne ra lly

e njoin futureviola

tions of those

sta tute s, in a ddition to de sc ribing 3spe c ific te rm s for injunc tive re l ie f to re m e dy HR B ’ s a lle ge dly

m isle a ding we b se rvic e s a nd a dve rtising. The re is no princ iple d distinc tion to bedrawn be twe e n the re lie f re que ste d he re and tha

t re que ste d in Mc G ill

and re late d C a lifornia

c a se s involving public injunc tive re lie f. The se c a se s hold tha t re lie f whic h e njoins de c e ptive pra c tic e s dire c te d at the public is publicinjunc tive re lie f. Se e Mc Gill , 393 P.3d a t 91; C ruz v . Pac ifiC areHe alth Sy

s., Inc . , 66 P.3d 1157, 1164–1165 (C a l. 2003), Broughton , 988 P.2d a

t 76–77 & n.5 (C a l. 1999). In Blair , we sim ila rly he ld tha t re lie f wa s public whe n it e njoine d future viola t ions of theUC L a

nd C L R A re late d to pric ing. 928 F.3d a

t 831 n.3. The

re lie f sought in this c a se would a ffe c t a lle g e dly de c e ptive pra c tic e s tha

t a im to lure m e m

be rs of the public to use and pa y for HRB ’ s se rvic e s, and the re lie f will be n e fit Sna rr only inc ide nta lly . Se e Broughton , 988 P.2d a t 76 n.5. HRB ’ s unpe rsua sive ly argue s tha

t the injunc t ive re lie f is priva te be c a use it be ne fits only

a group simila

rly situa te d to the Pla intiff, spe c i fic a lly those who both use HRB ’ s we b se rvic e s a nd a re e ligiblefor its IR S-a ffilia te d fre e file se rvic e . No C a lifornia a uthority supports c onstruing the be n e fic ia rie s of this ty

pe of injunc tive re lie f so na

rrowly . In Mc G ill , for e xam ple , the C a lifornia

Supre m e C ourt c onc lude d tha

t e njoining de c e ptive m arke ting unde r the se sta tute s wa s public , 4ra the r tha

n be ne fitting only

a group of pe ople who use tha t ba nk’ s se rvic e s. Mc G ill , 393 P.3d a

t 91; se e also Me

jia v . DAC

M Inc . , 268 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 642, 650–51 (C a l. C t. App. 2020) (re je c ting a s “ illogic [a l] ” the argum e nt tha t re quiring a de fe nda nt to givedisc losure form s whe n s e lling ve hic le s would be ne fit only “ t he c la ss of simila

rly situa te d individuals who . . . would buy a m otorc y c le from

[the de fe nda n t] ” unde r the sa

m e ty pe of c ontra c t). Nor do thee l igibility re quire m e nts for the IR S-a ffilia

te d fre e -filing se rvic e —

whe the r public ly

publishe d or not— c ha nge the public nature of the re lie f, just a s the e l igibility re quire m e nts tha

t we re like ly

re quire d for the c re dit c ard a c c ount in Mc Gill did not. Mc Gill , 939 P.3d at 91; se e also Eie

ss v . USAA Fe d. Sav . Bank , 404 F. Supp. 3d 1240, 1258–59 (N.D. C a l. 2019) (e xpla ining why re lie f be ne fitting a

subse t of the public is still public injunc tive re lie f). C lifford v . Que

st SoftwareInc . , 251 C a l. R ptr. 3d 269 (C a l . C t. App. 2019), is not to the

c ontra ry , a s HR B sugge sts. The re , the C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l e xpre s sly note d the priva te nature of the re lie f sought— to re m e dy wa ge viola

tions be twe e n a n e m ploy e e and e m

ploy e r— whe re a s the re l ie f sought he re c onc e rns m arke ting to the

public . Id. at 276–77.

5II

HRB ’ s a rgum e nt tha

t the Fe de ra l Arbitra

tion Ac t pre e m pts C a lifornia ’ s Mc G ill rule is fore c lose d by binding c irc uit pre c e de nt. Blair , 928 F.3d a t 830–31 (“ W e hold tha

t the FAA doe s not pre e m p t the Mc Gill rule .” ). HR B ’ s a rgum e nt that the public injunc tive re m e dy should bese ve re d from

the othe r re m e die s is a lso fore c lose d by Blair . Blair involve d ve ry sim ila r se ve ra bility la ngua ge and he ld that the e ntire c l a im

unde r the sta

tute m u st be se v e re d from arbitration, ra the r tha n just thepublic injunc tive re m e dy . 928 F.3d a t 831. III For the first tim e on a

ppe a l, HR

B a lle ge s tha

t it ha s volunta

rily e nde d its IR S-a ffilia

t e d filing se rvic e , a

nd tha t this c e s sation re n de rs Sna rr’ s re que st for public injunc tive re lie f m oot. On tha t ba sis, HR

B argue s tha

t we should re ve rse the d istric t c o urt’ s orde r de ny ing the m otion to c om p e l a rbitration. HR

B doe s not c la im tha t Sna rr’ s e n t ire la

wsuit is moot suc h

tha t we la c k Artic le III jurisdic tion; its a rgum e n t inste a d goe s to the m e rits of the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l. Our c onside ra tion of theissue is, the re fore , disc re tiona ry . Se e AlohaC

arev . Haw aii, De p’t of Human Serv

s. , 572 F.3d 740, 744–45 (9th C ir. 2009) (de sc ribing fa c tors to c o nside r whe n de c iding to a ddre ss a n issue ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l).

6W e have note d tha t “ [t] he volunta

ry c e ssation of c ha lle nge d c onduc t doe s not ordina

rily re nde r a c a se m oot be c a

use a dism issa l for m ootne ss would pe rm it a re sum ption of thec h a lle nge d c onduc t a s soon a s the c a se is dismisse d.” Am. Diabe te s Ass’n v . U.S. De

p’t of the Army , 938 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th C ir. 2019) (a lte ra tion original) (quoting Rose broc k

v . Mathis , 745 F.3d 963, 971 (9th C ir. 2014)). B ut e va l uat ing volunta ry c e ssation is fa c t-inte n sive . Se e Rose broc k, 745 F.3d at 972 (de sc ribing som e fa c tors to c onside r in de c iding m ootne s s ba s e d on volunta ry c e ssat ion). This issue

wa s not pre se nte d to the distric t c ourt a nd the re is no fa c tua l re c ord be fore us. In a ddition, some pa rt of the public injunc tion sought by Snarr m ay

still beava ila

ble e ve n without HR

B offe ring a

n IR S-a ffilia

te d se rvic e , ba se d on the c om pla int’ s a lle gations tha

t HR B ’ s a dve rtising of its own ta x se rvic e s inc lude s fa lse and m isle a ding sta te m e nts in viola

tion of thethre e sta

tute s. In light of the se c om

p l e xitie s, we de c l ine to a d dre ss this issue pre se nte d

for the first tim e on a

ppe a l. W e do not pre c lude HRB from pre s e nting this a

rgum e nt to the d istric t c o urt in thefirst insta nc e . AFFIRM E D.

7