Source: http://co.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180514_0000611.DCO.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 04:24:21+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Terlizzi v. Altitude Marketing, Inc.
Terlizzi v. Altitude Marketing, Inc.
ALTITUDE MARKETING, INC., and GREENSKY, LLC, Defendants.
Plaintiffs Jason and Rebecca Terlizzi (“the Terlizzis”) bring this putative class action against Defendants Altitude Marketing, Inc. (“Altitude”), and GreenSky, LLC (“GreenSky”), for claims related to Defendants' allegedly deceptive marketing and sale of high-interest financing for rooftop solar power systems. (ECF No. 1.) Currently before the Court is GreenSky's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings. (ECF No. 86.) Despite its title, this motion primarily addresses arbitration and, alternatively, dismissal for failure to state a claim. The Terlizzis respond that they never entered into an arbitration agreement and that their claims are sufficiently pleaded.
For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that an arbitration agreement exists between the Terlizzis and GreenSky, and that the arbitration agreement encompasses all of the disputes at issue here. Accordingly, under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., the Court must refer the parties to arbitration. GreenSky's motion will therefore be granted to that extent, and is otherwise denied without prejudice. The Court will stay proceedings between the Terlizzis and GreenSky, and the Terlizzis will be required to submit an appropriate filing regarding the current status of Altitude.
The Terlizzis filed this lawsuit in July 2016. (ECF No. 1.) GreenSky filed its Motion to Compel in August 2016. (ECF No. 13.) Altitude filed its own similar motion in September 2016. (ECF No. 23.) The Terlizzis filed a combined response to both motions in October 2016. (ECF No. 40.) Later than same month, GreenSky filed its reply brief (ECF No. 45), as did Altitude (ECF No. 46).
In April 2017, Altitude's counsel moved to withdraw. (ECF No. 58.) The Magistrate Judge granted that motion on May 5, 2017, and ordered Altitude to obtain new counsel by June 2, 2017. (ECF No. 61.) Altitude did not do so by that date, nor has it done so since.
On June 12, 2017, the Terlizzis and GreenSky filed a Joint Status Report requesting thirty additional days for settlement discussions. (ECF No. 65.) In that report, the Terlizzis and GreenSky announced their understanding that Altitude had filed for bankruptcy and so the Terlizzis were no longer actively negotiating with Altitude. (Id. at 1 n.1.) No suggestion of bankruptcy has been filed, however.
(ECF No. 85.) This order should have identified GreenSky's Motion to Compel as ECF No. 13, rather than 23; and GreenSky's reply brief as ECF No. 45, not 46. This error flowed from GreenSky's misidentification of its own motion.
In any event, GreenSky refiled its own motion, as directed, and that is the motion currently before the Court. (ECF No. 86.) The Court has reviewed that motion as well as the Terlizzis' previously-filed response (ECF No. 40) and GreenSky's previously-filed reply (ECF No. 45). The Court has also considered the supplemental authority submitted by GreenSky at ECF No. 87-1.
the moving party bears the initial burden of presenting evidence sufficient to demonstrate than an enforceable arbitration agreement exists. If the moving party satisfies that burden, the burden then shifts to the party opposing arbitration, which must show that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the making of the agreement, using evidence comparable to that identified in Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.
Let's Go Aero, Inc. v. Cequent Performance Prod., Inc., 78 F.Supp.3d 1363, 1373 (D. Colo. 2015) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). If the opponent “demonstrates a genuine issue of material fact, then a trial on the existence of the arbitration agreement is required.” Stein, 396 F.Supp.2d at 1213 (citing, inter alia, 9 U.S.C. § 4).
GreenSky is incorrect on this point. Although interpretation of the scope of an arbitration clause is a matter that the parties may delegate to an arbitrator, the threshold question of whether they entered any agreement to arbitrate is a matter for the Court. See, e.g., Rent-A-Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 71 (2010) (“If a party challenges the validity . . . of the precise agreement to arbitrate at issue, the federal court must consider the challenge before ordering compliance with that agreement . . . .”); Dumais v. Am. Golf Corp., 299 F.3d 1216, 1220 (10th Cir. 2002) (“The presumption in favor of arbitration is properly applied in interpreting the scope of an arbitration agreement; however, this presumption disappears when the parties dispute the existence of a valid arbitration agreement.”).
Because GreenSky does not challenge the Terlizzis' proffered procedure for resolving the question of whether an arbitration agreement exists, the Court therefore deems the Terlizzis' argument conceded and will apply this District's typical approach.
The following facts are undisputed unless attributed to one party or another, or otherwise noted.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 4
 v. 
 v.