1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of Case No.: 3:25-cv-44-CAB-JLB others similarly situated, 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO Plaintiff, 13 COMPEL ARBITRATION v. 14 [Doc. No. 10] OPTUM, INC., 15 Defendant. 16

17 On March 31, 2025, Defendant Optum, Inc., filed a motion to compel arbitration 18 pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and to stay the case. [Doc. No. 10.] On 19 April 18, 2025, Plaintiff John Doe filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion. [Doc. 20 No. 11.] The Court has subject matter over the case as Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated, 21 inter alia, a federal statute—the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 22 § 2511(1). “A party seeking to compel arbitration has the burden under the FAA to show 23 (1) the existence of a valid, written agreement to arbitrate; and if it exists, (2) that the 24 agreement to arbitrate encompasses the dispute at issue.” Ashbey v. Archstone Prop. 25 Mgmt., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2015). Defendant demonstrates that Plaintiff 26 used Defendant’s website, created an online account, and agreed to its terms of use, which 27 included an agreement to arbitrate. [Doc. No. 10-1 at 9–13.] The agreement notes that it 28 1 includes “any claims relating to [the] [t]erms, or the Online Services.” [/d. at 13.] Plaintiff 2 alleges that Defendant facilitated the tracking and interception of Plaintiff’s confidential 3 medical information when Plaintiff used Defendant’s website, which qualifies as an online 4 ||service. [Compl. §§ 94-102.] Accordingly, as a valid arbitration agreement that 5 ||encompasses the dispute at issue exists, and Plaintiff does not oppose compelling 6 || arbitration, the Court GRANTS the motion. 7 It is SO ORDERED. 8 9 || Dated: May 21, 2025 € Z 10 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28