Fuller, Sr. v. Green Dot Bank

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
AHMAD RASHAD FULLER SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GREEN DOT BANK,
Defendant.
Case No. 26-cv-07508-CRB
ORDER COMPELLING
ARBITRATION
Plaintiff Ahmad Rasha Fuller sued Green Dot Bank, alleging that after he deposited
a federal tax refund of $19,415.52 in one of its accounts, Green Dot inexplicably mailed a
check for the funds to an unknown individual who then cashed it. See First Am. Compl.
(“FAC”) (dkt. 21) at 1–2. Mr. Fuller raises several statutory and common law claims,
seeking redress. Id. at 2–3. Defendant responded, requesting this Court stay the claims
and compel arbitration because Mr. Fuller agreed to a binding arbitration clause when he
created his account. See Mem. of Points and Auths. in Supp. of Def.’s Mot. to Stay
Claims in Favor of Arb. or Dismissal (“Motions”) (dkt. 23) at 1–7. This Court agrees.
The Court thus STAYS Mr. Fuller’s claims and GRANTS the motion to compel
arbitration.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Mr. Fuller’s deposited his federal tax refund of $19,415.52 into his Green Dot
account on December 16, 2024. FAC at 1. Without Mr. Fuller’s authorization, Green Dot
sent a paper check for those funds to an unknown address. Id. Around January 1, 2025,
someone cashed that check. Id. at 2. Mr. Fuller reported the problem to Green Dot and
Green Dot opened an investigation and assigned the case a claim number. Id. Green Dot
Case 3:26-cv-07508-CRB Document 28 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 5

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ultimately denied Mr. Fuller’s claim. Id. Mr. Fuller alleges he received no “meaningful
explanation” of the denial, no reimbursement, and that Green Dot failed to conduct a
“commercially reasonable investigation” into the incident. Id. He filed this suit pro se and
alleges Green Dot violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and
common law protections against negligence and conversion. Id. at 2–3.
Green Dot filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to stay claims in favor of
arbitration. Motions. It argues that Mr. Fuller agreed to an arbitration agreement when he
signed up for his Green Dot account and that all claims relating to the account are subject
to arbitration. Motions at 2–3. To activate his account, Mr. Fuller had to click a box
acknowledging and agreeing to the Cardholder Agreement containing the arbitration
clause. Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Stay Claims in Favor of Arb. or Dismissal (“Reply”)
(dkt. 26) at 6. The arbitration agreement states that:
Your Card is being made available and priced by the Bank on
the basis of your acceptance of the following arbitration clause.
By accepting your Card, you acknowledge that you are giving
up the right to litigate Claims (as defined below) if either party
elects arbitration of the Claims pursuant to this cause, except as
otherwise expressly provided herein, and you hereby knowingly
and voluntarily waive the right to trial of all Claims subject to
this agreement.
The agreement’s definition of arbitrable claims includes:
[A]ny claim, dispute, or controversy . . . arising from or relating
to: (i) the Card; (ii) any service relating to the Card; (iii) the
marketing of the Card; (iv) this Agreement, including the
validity, enforceability, interpretation, scope or application of
this Agreement and this arbitration provision (except for the
prohibition on class or other non-individual claims, which shall
be for a court to decide); and (v) any other agreement or
instrument relating to the Card or any related service . . . .
See Motions at 2–3.
Mr. Fuller’s response argued, in essence, that Green Dot has failed to satisfy its
burden of showing that an enforceable arbitration agreement exists between the parties.
See Pl.’s Opp. to Def.’s Mot. to Stay Claim in Favor of Arb. or Dismiss (“Opp.”) (dkt. 24)
at 5–7 (document incorporated by reference within motion for leave to file late opposition).
Case 3:26-cv-07508-CRB Document 28 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 5

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Although the Court has both a motion to dismiss and motion to compel arbitration
before it, the request for arbitration comes first. See Szutu v. Charles Schwab, No. 26-cv-
07921-AH, 2026 WL 2871218, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2026). If an arbitration
agreement exists, the sufficiency of a claim should be handled in arbitration, not by this
Court. See G.P. v. Hernandez Arevalo, No. 26-284-KKE, 2026 WL 2640666, at *5 (W.D.
Wash. Sept. 8, 2026) (“[T]he arbitrator, rather than the Court, should assess the sufficiency
of [the plaintiff’s] pleading.”).
The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) created a strong policy in favor of arbitration.
Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc., 175 F.3d 716, 719 (9th Cir. 1999). “[A]ny doubts concerning
the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration.” Id. (quoting
Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24–25 (1983).
When ruling on a motion to compel arbitration, courts must only determine
“(1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and, if it does, (2) whether the agreement
encompasses the dispute at issue.” Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d
1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). If the answer to both questions is “yes,” the court must
enforce the arbitration agreement. Id.
III. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	A Valid Agreement
Green Dot’s arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable. To sign up for his
account, Mr. Fuller had to click a box stating that he had “read and agree[d] to . . . the
Cardholder agreement,” with the Agreement linked. See Second Decl. of Ralicia
Leapheart (dkt. 26-1) at 1. This is a “clickwrap” agreement, and courts have “routinely
found clickwrap agreements enforceable.” Keebaugh v. Warner Bros. Ent. Inc., 100 F.4th
1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting Berman v. Freedom Fin. Network, LLC, 30 F.4th 849,
856 (9th Cir. 2022)); see In re Wyze Data Incident Litig., No. C20-0282-JCC, 2020 WL
6202724, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 22, 2020) (collecting cases showing that “courts
throughout this circuit have consistently upheld arbitration provisions contained in
Case 3:26-cv-07508-CRB Document 28 Filed 10/14/26 Page 3 of 5

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
clickwrap agreements”). Green Dot’s clickwrap agreement links to the Cardholder
Agreement, which notes the arbitration clause at the top in bold and capitalized letters.
See Motions at 2. Notice and assent are clear. 1
Mr. Fuller responds that Green Dot must provide support for the claim that a matter
is covered by an arbitration clause—and argues Green Dot’s declarations are insufficient to
do so. See Opp. at 6. But Green Dot here has done enough. The moving party must show
the existence of an agreement by a preponderance of the evidence if the plaintiff
challenges the agreement’s validity. See Zamudio v. Aerotek, Inc., 733 F. Supp. 3d 931,
938 (E.D. Cal. 2024). While Mr. Fuller does not directly challenge the existence of the
arbitration agreement—but only the sufficiency of Green Dot’s evidence—Green Dot’s
declarations are enough to satisfy even the preponderance standard. They provide a copy
of the cardholder agreement, show Mr. Fuller could not have created an account except by
agreeing to its terms, and that Mr. Fuller created his account on March 9, 2023. See
Second Decl. of Ralicia Leapheart (dkt. 26-1) at 1–2; Decl. of Ralicia Leapheart (dkt. 23-
1). Green Dot is right that requiring more, like a declaration from someone who
“personally observed Plaintiff” click the box, Opp. at 6, would render online arbitration
agreements all but unenforceable. See Reply at 7–8. Evidence that an account cannot be
created without ascent to the agreement is sufficient. And Green Dot has provided that.
B. 	Encompassing the Dispute
This arbitration agreement encompasses Mr. Fuller’s claim. The arbitration clause
covers claims “arising from or relating to . . . any service relating to the Card.” Motions
at 2. Mr. Fuller’s claims relate to Green Dot’s handling of funds in his Card account. See
generally FAC. The question of whether Green Dot is liable for mistakenly sending those
funds to another third party is inextricably linked with questions about Mr. Fuller’s and
1 Mr. Fuller’s citation to Berman to argue that there was insufficient notice and assent here
is unavailing. Opp. at 5. The Berman court itself said that clickwrap agreements are the
most “straightforward application” of contracting principles in online contracts. See 30
F.4th at 856. And the Court sees no reason to distinguish this agreement from others
courts have found binding and valid.
Case 3:26-cv-07508-CRB Document 28 Filed 10/14/26 Page 4 of 5

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Green Dot’s use of the Card account. In light of the FAA’s strong policy in favor of
arbitration, this Court resolves any doubts in favor of arbitration. Simula, 175 F.3d at 719.
The Court has little doubt.
C. 	Conclusion on Arbitrability
Mr. Fuller is subject to a valid arbitration agreement that encompasses this dispute.
This Court must compel arbitration of the claims.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court GRANTS the motion to compel arbitration
and STAYS Mr. Fullers claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 14, 2026
CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-07508-CRB Document 28 Filed 10/14/26 Page 5 of 5