Case Explained: DAWSON, ET AL. V. TARGET CORPORATION, ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-14 Docket: 3:24-cv-08167-AMO The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s order denying Target Corporation’s motion to compel arbitration and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that a genuine dispute of material fact remains regarding whether the parties formed an agreement to arbitrate, specifically concerning which version of Target’s checkout screen the plaintiff encountered and whether he logged into his account while the arbitration agreement was in effect. Applying de novo review to the denial of the motion to compel and clear error review to underlying factual findings, the court determined that the district court erred by failing to resolve these factual disputes before ruling on the motion. The panel noted that under the summary judgment standard applicable to arbitrability motions, if genuine disputes exist as to whether an arbitration agreement was formed, the district court must hold the motion in abeyance and proceed to a trial on arbitrability. The court found that conflicting evidence regarding the checkout screen version (a $3.99 fee versus a $6.49 fee) and the plaintiff’s equivocal testimony about signing in created unresolved factual issues that precluded summary judgment on the arbitration question. On remand, the district court is instructed to determine whether these factual disputes can be resolved without a trial or if a trial on arbitrability is necessary. The court must then apply the traditional inquiry regarding the visuals involved with notice and the context of the transaction to decide if a valid contract to arbitrate was formed. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.