Opinion ID: 2780542
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Enforceability of the Arbitration Provision

Text: Appellants first contend that the district court erred in compelling arbitration because the Arbitration Provision is unenforceable. A district court’s grant of a motion to compel arbitration is reviewed de novo. Covington v. Aban Offshore Ltd., 650 F.3d 556, 558 (5th Cir. 2011). A district court must compel arbitration if there is an agreement for arbitration and a party has failed to comply with that agreement. 9 U.S.C. § 4. The determination of whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate is generally governed by “ordinary state-law principles that govern the formation of contracts.” First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944 (1995). Appellants argue that the Arbitration Provision is an unenforceable illusory promise and that it 4 Case: 14-10193 Document: 00512940369 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/19/2015 No. 14-10193 fails for lack of consideration. Before the district court, however, they argued only that the Arbitration Provision did not cover Appellants’ claims, that the Arbitration Provision was procedurally and substantively unconscionable, that the Arbitration Provision imposed prohibitive costs on Appellants, that the Arbitration Provision impermissibly forced Appellants to waive their substantive rights under FLSA, and that PCM waived its right to arbitration by substantially invoking the judicial process, discussed in Part III infra. As Appellants failed to argue that the Arbitration Provision was illusory or lacked consideration before the district court, these arguments are waived. See Crawford Prof’l Drugs, Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp., 748 F.3d 249, 267 (5th Cir. 2014) (“The general rule of this court is that arguments not raised before the district court are waived and will not be considered on appeal” (internal quotation marks omitted)).