N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
PASSION GAB O UREL, individua lly and on be ha lf of a ll othe rs sim ila rly situa te d, Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. LUXOTTIC A OF AM ER IC A , INC ., a n Ohio c orporat ion, DB A Le nsc ra fte rs,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt,
and LUXOTTIC A RETAIL NOR TH AM E R IC A, INC ., a

busine ss e ntity

of unknown form ,

De fe nda n t. No. 23-55185 D.C . No. 2:22-c v-00471-FW S-M AA
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Fre d W . Sla

ughte r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 11, 2024 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# F IL ED
JAN 24 2024 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.B e fore : B OGGS, * * R AW LINSON, a

nd H.A. THOM AS, C irc uit Judge s. Luxottic a of Am e ric a , Inc ., d/b/a

Le nsC ra fte rs (Luxottic a ) a ppe a ls the distric t c o urt’ s de n ia l of Luxottic a ’ s m otion to c o m pe l its e m ploy e e , Pa ssion Ga boure l (Ga

boure l), to a

rbitrate this e m

ploy m e nt a c tion. Thedistric t

c o urt found that the 2015 dispute

re solution agre e m e nt Ga

boure l signe d (the 2015 DR A) wa s supe rse de d by

the 2018 dispute

re solution agre e m e nt (the 2018 DR A). Luxottic a
c onte nds tha

t the 2015 DR

A re m a ins in e ffe c t be c a

use Ga boure l ne ve r a s se nte d to the 2 018 DR

A, but inste a d opte d out of it. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 9 U.S.C . § 16. R e vie wing de novo, se eBie lsk i v . C oinbase , Inc
. , 87 F.4th 1003, 1008 (9th C ir. 2023), we a ffirm
. 1. As a pre lim ina

ry m a tte r, we c onc l ude tha

t, e ve n if not wa ive d, Luxottic a ’ s a

rgum e n t tha t this issue

should bede le gate d

to the arbitrator la c ks
m e rit. Se e Holle

y -Galle gly v . TA Ope rating, LLC , 74 F.4th 997, 1001 (9th C ir. 2023) (e xpla ining tha

t a rgum e nts not ra ise d be fore the distric t c ourt “ with suffic i e nt spe c i fic ity

and vigor” are ge ne ra lly

c onside re d wa ive d on a

p pe a l). B oth the 2 015 DR

A a nd the 2018 DR

A e xpre s sly

sta te tha t “ [a ] ny dispute s a

bout the
e nforc e a bility of the Dispute R e solution Agre e m e nt sha ll be de c ide d by a c ourt.”

* * The Honora

ble Da nny J. B oggs, Unite d

Stat e s C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Sixth C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion. 22. W e a g re e with thedistric t c ourt’ s de te rm ination tha t the 2018 DR

A
wa s a va lid a nd e nforc e a

ble a gre e m e nt be twe e n Ga boure l a nd Luxottic a . Unde r C a lifornia la w, 1 m utua l a sse nt to a

c ontra c t “ i s to be a sc e rta ine d sole ly from the
c ontra c t tha

t is re duc e d to writing, if possible .” Martine z v . BaronHR, Inc
. , 51 C a l.App.5th 962, 967 (2020) (c ita tions omitte d). Unde r its writte n te rm s, the 2018 DR A “ [wa ] s e ffe c tive upon [Ga boure l ’ s] re c e i pt of it.” Ga b oure l e le c tronic a lly

“ a c knowle dge [d] tha

t she ha [d] be e n give n

the opportunity

to re vie wthe [2018 DR A] .” And in signing the

a c c om pa ny ing Ac knowle dgm e nt a nd Agre e m e n t, Ga boure l re pre se nte d tha

t she “ re c e ive d, . . . re a d, . . . unde rst[ood] [,] and a gre e [d] to the te rm s of ” the 2018 DR A. Ga boure l’ s subse que nt opt-out se le c t ion did not c onstitute a re je c tion of the 2018 DR A. Ga boure l’ s opt-out se le c t ion from the drop-down m e nu indic ate d tha t she “ a gre e [d] tha

t [she wa s] not e ntitle d or re quire d to pa rtic ipate in or utiliz e the
arbitration proc e dure s de sc ribe d in ‘ Dispute R e solution Agre e m e nt Ste p #2: Arbitra tion’ in the [2018 DR

A ] .” Inte rpre ting thea gre e m e nt a s a whole , we
c onc lude tha

t the opt-out la

ngua ge re fle c t s tha

t Ga boure l a c c e pte d the 2018 DR A,
and tha t he r opt-out wa s lim ite d to the provisions re quiring he r to pa rtic ipate in the

1 “ State c ontra c t la

w c o n trols whe the r the pa rtie s ha ve a gre e d to a

rbitrate .” K nutson v . SiriusXM Radio Inc

. , 771 F.3d 558, 565 (9th C i r. 2014). 3arbitration proc e e d i ngs de s c ribe d in “ Ste p #2.” Se e Se gal v . Silbe rste i n 156 C a l.App.4th 627, 633 (2007). Additionally , the 2018 DR A provide s tha

t it

“ re pla c e s prior a gre e m e n ts re ga rding the arbitration of dispute s .” Thus, the2015 DR A wa s supe rse de d by

the va lid a

nd e nforc e a

ble 2018 DR

A. 2 AFFIRM E D.

2 W e are not pe rsua de d by Luxottic a ’ s re lia

n c e on Sonic o v . C

harte r C ommunic a tions, LLC

, No. 19-c v-01842-B A S-LL, 2021 W L 268637 (S.D. C a l. Ja n. 27, 2021). Not only

is Sonic o a

non-binding distric

t c ourt de c ision, it is fa c t ua lly distinguisha

ble
. Se e id. a t *6–7 (finding tha t a n e m ploy e e ’ s opting out of an a rbitra tion a gre e m e n t wa s a

re je c tion of tha

t a gre e m e nt be c a

use the e m

ploy e e ne ve r a c c e p te d the a gre e m e n t be fore opting out). W e a lso notetha t the 2018 DR

A did not c le arly

and e xpre ssly

inform the e m ploy e e tha

t opting out of the

2018 DR A would re sult in re v e rsion to a nd e nforc e m e nt of the 2015 DR A. C f. id. a t *3 (noting tha

t the e m ploy e e ’ s c o ntra c t e xpre ssly sta t e d tha t opting out of the arbitration a gre e m e n t

would le ave the prior a gre e m e nts in e ffe c t).

4