# Brown

> District Court, M.D. Florida · April 30, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11367677

## Case

- **Full name:** Arthur Brown v. Tesla, Inc.
- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** April 30, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11367677

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

ARTHUR BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 3:25-cv-1462-WWB-LLL

TESLA, INC.,

Defendant.
/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration
(Doc. 13), Plaintiff’s Opposition (Doc. 19), and Defendant’s Reply (Doc. 24).1 For the
reasons set forth below, Defendant’s Motion will be granted in part.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Arthur Brown purchased a Powerwall 2 from Defendant Tesla, Inc.
(“Tesla”) to charge his Tesla vehicles, save on energy bills, and sell stored energy back
to his power grid. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 42–43, 45). The Powerwall was backed by an express
Limited Warranty (Doc. 1-4), which included an agreement to arbitrate “any dispute
arising out of or relating to any aspect of the relationship between [Brown and
Tesla] . . . on an individual basis.” (Id. at 3).

1 Plaintiff’s Opposition fails to comply with this Court’s January 13, 2021 Standing
Order. In the interests of justice, the Court will consider the filing because this matter is
fully briefed and ripe for resolution on the merits, but the parties are cautioned that future
failures to comply with all applicable rules and orders of this Court may result in the
striking or denial of filings without notice or leave to refile. The Court notes that its April
2, 2026 Standing Order was issued subsequent to the instant filings but applies
prospectively to all filings in this action.
Brown alleges “that a significant population of Powerwall 2 systems contained
[defective] lithium-ion battery cells” that could “overheat, stop functioning, emit smoke, or
catch fire under normal operating conditions.” (Doc. 1, ¶ 21). Tesla issued a recall on
the affected units, including Brown’s. (Id. ¶¶ 23, 29). Pursuant to the recall, Tesla will

inspect and eventually replace affected Powerwalls. (Id. ¶ 27). But because the recall
process has been “slow” and “burdensome,” Tesla has, in the interim, remotely
disengaged the affected Powerwalls on an intermittent basis to prevent overheating. (Id.;
see also id. ¶¶ 26, 29, 46–48). Accordingly, Brown initiated a putative class action against
Tesla on behalf of Powerwall purchasers across the United States and Florida, bringing
claims for breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and violations of
the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. (See generally id.). Tesla moves
to compel arbitration pursuant to the relevant clause in its Limited Warranty. (See
generally Doc. 13).

II. LEGAL STANDARD
In general, the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., governs the
enforceability of arbitration provisions in contracts involving transactions in interstate
commerce. Hill v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 398 F.3d 1286, 1288 (11th Cir. 2005). “A written
provision in . . . a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by
arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract . . . shall be valid,
irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the
revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. “The FAA embodies a ‘liberal federal policy
favoring arbitration agreements.’” Hill, 398 F.3d at 1288 (quoting Moses H. Cone Mem’l
Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983)). However, it is well-settled that
“arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration
any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit.” AT & T Techs., Inc. v. Commc’ns
Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 648 (1986) (quotation omitted).
“A party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of another to arbitrate

under a written agreement for arbitration may petition any United States district
court . . . for an order directing that such arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in
such agreement.” 9 U.S.C. § 4. In determining whether to compel arbitration, courts do
not weigh the merits of the parties’ claims. AT & T Techs., 475 U.S. at 649. Rather,
courts must limit their review to three factors: “(1) whether a valid written agreement to
arbitrate exists; (2) whether an arbitrable issue exists; and (3) whether the right to arbitrate
was waived.” Senti v. Sanger Works Factory, Inc., No. 6:06-cv-1903-Orl, 2007 WL
1174076, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 18, 2007). “[W]hile doubts concerning the scope of an
arbitration clause should be resolved in favor of arbitration, the presumption does not
apply to disputes concerning whether an agreement to arbitrate has been made.”

Bazemore v. Jefferson Cap. Sys., LLC, 827 F.3d 1325, 1329 (11th Cir. 2016) (quotation
omitted).
III. DISCUSSION
Tesla argues that Brown entered into a valid arbitration agreement and that any
further questions of arbitrability have been delegated to the arbitrator. The Court agrees.
“[S]tate law governs whether an enforceable contract or agreement to arbitrate exists.”
Exceen v. Ramirez, No. 8:24-cv-880, 2024 WL 3327509, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 13, 2024)
(quotation omitted). And under Florida law “[o]ne cannot both take advantage of contract
provisions to seek to impose liability on [a business] and at the same time avoid another
contract term or provision for which it has no use.” Giller v. Cafeteria of S. Beach Ltd.,
967 So. 2d 240, 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (collecting cases). Here, Brown attempts to do
just that. He does not dispute that he entered into an agreement with Tesla, that the
agreement was governed by a Limited Warranty, or that the Limited Warranty contained

an arbitration clause—in fact, Brown alleges all three points and seeks relief under the
terms of the Limited Warranty. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 17–20, 80–86). Thus, he cannot avoid the
Limited Warranty’s arbitration provision.
Brown’s counterarguments are unpersuasive. Brown first argues that Tesla has
failed to meet its burden to show that an agreement to arbitrate exists because the parties
have submitted different versions of Tesla’s Limited Warranty—Brown’s submission
being effective April 19, 2017, and Tesla’s being effective April 13, 2021. (Doc. 1-4 at 2;
Doc. 14-1 at 1). While the Complaint does not allege the exact date on which Plaintiff
purchased a Firewall, both parties’ submissions include an arbitration agreement.
Brown’s April 2017 Limited Warranty provides:

Agreement to Arbitrate. Please read this provision carefully.

In the event of a concern or dispute between us, please send Tesla written
Notice to energyresolutions@tesla.com describing the nature of the dispute
and the relief sought.

If it is not resolved within 60 days, Tesla and you agree that any dispute
arising out of or relating to any aspect of the relationship between us will not
be decided by a judge or jury but instead by a single arbitrator in an
arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association (AAA).
This includes claims arising before this Agreement, including claims related
to statements about our products. Alternatively, you may opt out of
arbitration as described below.

The AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules will apply. We will pay all AAA fees
for any arbitration. The arbitration will be held in a location most convenient
to your residence. To learn more about the Rules and how to begin an
arbitration, you may call any AAA office or go to www.adr.org.
The arbitrator may only resolve disputes between you and Tesla on an
individual basis. The arbitrator cannot award relief for anyone who is not a
party and may not consolidate claims. In other words, you and Tesla may
bring claims against the other only in your or its individual capacity and not
as a plaintiff or class member in any class or representative action. If a court
or arbitrator decides that any of this section’s limitations cannot be enforced
as to a particular claim for relief, then that claim (and only that claim) must
be severed from the arbitration and may be brought in court.

If you prefer, you may instead take your individual dispute to small claims
court.

You may opt out within 30 days after accepting the terms of this Limited
Warranty by sending a letter to P.O. Box 15430, Fremont, CA 94539-7970,
stating your name and intent to opt out of the arbitration provision.

(Doc. 1-4 at 3). Tesla’s April 2021 Limited Warranty provides substantially identical terms:
Agreement to Arbitrate. Please carefully read this provision, which applies
to any dispute between you and Tesla, Inc. and its affiliates (together
“Tesla”).

If you have a concern or dispute, please send a written notice describing it
and your desired resolution to resolutions@tesla.com.

If not resolved within 60 days, you agree that any dispute arising out of or
relating to any aspect of the relationship between you and Tesla will not be
decided by a judge or jury but instead by a single arbitrator in an arbitration
administered by the American Arbitration Association (AAA) under its
Consumer Arbitration Rules. This includes claims arising before this
Agreement, such as claims related to statements about our products.

We will pay all AAA fees for any arbitration, which will be held in the city or
county of your residence. To learn more about the Rules and how to begin
an arbitration, you may call any AAA office or go to http://www.adr.org.

The arbitrator may only resolve disputes between you and Tesla and may
not consolidate claims without the consent of all parties. The arbitrator
cannot hear class or representative claims or requests for relief on behalf
of others purchasing or leasing Tesla products. In other words, you and
Tesla may bring claims against the other only in your or its individual
capacity and not as a plaintiff or class member in any class or representative
action. If a court or arbitrator decides that any part of this agreement to
arbitrate cannot be enforced as to a particular claim for relief or remedy
(such as injunctive or declaratory relief), then that claim or remedy (and only
that claim or remedy) shall be severed and must be brought in court and
any other claims must be arbitrated.

If you prefer, you may instead take an individual dispute to small claims
court.

You may opt out of arbitration within 30 days after signing this Agreement
by sending a letter to: Tesla, Inc.; P.O. Box 15430; Fremont, CA 94539-
7970, stating your name, product, and intent to opt out of the arbitration
provision. If you do not opt out, this agreement to arbitrate overrides any
different arbitration agreement between us, including any arbitration
agreement in a lease or finance contract.

(Doc. 14-1 at 2–3). Therefore, no version of facts presents a material dispute over the
existence of an agreement to arbitrate. Cf. Bazemore, 827 F.3d at 1333 (stating that “a
summary judgment-like standard is appropriate” for evaluating the formation of an
arbitration agreement).
Perhaps anticipating this conclusion, Brown next disputes Tesla’s ability to rely on
his own allegations concerning the Limited Warranty, which necessarily establish that
Brown entered into a valid agreement with Tesla. The Court sees no reason to discount
Brown’s allegations, as they constitute “conclusively binding” judicial admissions until the
underlying pleading is amended or withdrawn. Lage v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, 145
F. Supp. 3d 1172, 1191 (S.D. Fla. 2015) (quoting White v. ARCO/Polymers, Inc., 720
F.2d 1391, 1396 (5th Cir. 1983)). And, once again, Florida law “precludes a party from
claiming the benefits of a contract (i.e., suing to enforce a contractual provision) while
simultaneously attempting to avoid the arbitration provision within the contract.” Johnson
v. Westlake Portfolio Mgmt., LLC, No. 8:20-cv-749-T, 2020 WL 5526386, at *2 (M.D. Fla.
Sept. 15, 2020).
Further inquiries into the arbitrability of Brown’s claims have been delegated to the
arbitrator. “A court’s analysis of an arbitration agreement turns on whether it contains a
delegation agreement, which ‘commits questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator’s review,
including questions about the validity or enforceability of the parties’ primary arbitration
agreement.’” KMF Servs., LLC v. Shift4 Payments, LLC, No. 3:24-cv-633, 2025 WL
3669516, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 15, 2025) (quoting Attix v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC,

35 F.4th 1284, 1303 (11th Cir. 2022)). “[W]here an arbitration agreement contains a
delegation provision—committing to the arbitrator the threshold determination of whether
the agreement to arbitrate is enforceable—the courts only retain jurisdiction to review a
challenge to that specific provision.” Id. (quoting Ford of Kendall, LLC v. Lemus, No. 24-
10831, 2024 WL 4449455, at *3 (11th Cir. Oct. 9, 2024)). Here, there is no dispute that
both limited warranties establish that any arbitration will be conducted under the American
Arbitration Association’s Consumer Arbitration Rules, which delegate questions of
arbitrability to the arbitrator. Cf. Attix, 35 F.4th at 1291 (“[B]y incorporating the AAA’s
rules for consumer arbitrations into their agreement, the parties had agreed to ‘delegate’
any disputes about the arbitrability of Attix’s claims to an arbitrator.”); Airbnb, Inc. v. Doe,

336 So. 3d 698, 704 (Fla. 2022) (holding that parties “clearly and unmistakably agreed
that an arbitrator decides questions of arbitrability” because “Airbnb’s Terms of Service
explicitly incorporate[d] by reference the AAA Rules”).
Brown correctly notes that if the Court finds that issues of arbitrability have been
delegated, it maintains jurisdiction to rule on challenges to the delegation agreement
itself. See KMF Servs., 2025 WL 3669516, at *3–4. But from there, Brown reiterates that
Tesla has failed to show formation of a contract. As stated above, this argument is
contrary to both Florida law and “federal policy favoring arbitration.” Exceen, 2024 WL
3327509, at *2 (quoting Caley v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 428 F.3d 1359, 1368 (11th
Cir. 2005)).
Lastly, Tesla moves for dismissal or a stay pending arbitration, arguing that the
weight of authority supports dismissal. “When a district court finds that a lawsuit involves

an arbitrable dispute, and a party requests a stay pending arbitration, § 3 of the FAA
compels the court to stay the proceeding.” Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472, 478 (2024).
While Brown has not requested a stay under § 3 of the FAA, the Court nonetheless finds
that a stay is more appropriate. See Exceen, 2024 WL 3327509, at *2 (“If a court compels
arbitration, it should stay the arbitrable claims.” (citing Smith, 601 U.S. at 474; Klay v. All
Defs., 389 F.3d 1191, 1203–04 (11th Cir. 2004))).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. 13) is GRANTED in part to
the extent provided herein and DENIED in all other respects. The parties

are directed to submit all claims to arbitration in accordance with the terms
of their agreement.
2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15) is DENIED as moot and
Defendant’s Request for Oral Argument (Doc. 17) is DENIED as to the
Motion to Compel Arbitration and DENIED as moot as to the Motion to
Dismiss.
3. This case is STAYED pending arbitration. On or before October 27, 2026,
and every 180 days thereafter, Defendant shall file a report as to the status
of the arbitration proceeding. Additionally, Defendant shall notify this Court
within ten days of the final resolution of the arbitration proceeding or other
resolution of this dispute.
4. The Clerk is directed to administratively close this case.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida on April 30, 2026.

WENDY W.B
UNITED STATES T JUDG

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11367677. Public record. Not legal advice.