Plainti ff Cynthia Hines ("Plainti ff " or "Hines") initi ated a purported class acti on pursuant to the Court's diversity jurisdicti on, allegingthat defendant Overstock.com, Inc.'s ("Defendant" or "Overstock") decision to impose a "restocking fee" amounted to a breach ofcontract. Overstock is an online, "closeout" retailer. On or about January 8, 2009, the Plainti ff purchased an Electrolux Oxygen 3 UltraCanister vacuum from Overstock's website. Aft er receiving the vacuum, Plainti ff returned it to Defendant and was reimbursed the fullamount she had paid for it, minus a $30.00 restocking fee. Plainti ff claims that she had been advised that she could return the vacuumwithout incurring any costs and that Defendant never disclosed that a restocking fee would be charged. In support of the Moti on, Defendant avers that: "All retail purchases from Overstock are conducted through Overstock's Internetwebsite. When an individual accesses the website, he or she accepts Overstock's terms, conditi ons, and policies, which govern all ofOverstock's customer purchases." Overstock's "Terms and Conditi ons" state that "Entering this Site will consti tute your acceptance ofthese Terms and Conditi ons" and include a provision that requires that "any dispute relati ng in any way to your visit to the Site . . . besubmitt ed to confi denti al arbitrati on in Salt Lake City, Utah." Plainti ff affi rms, however, that she "never had any noti ce that disputes with Overstock.com require mandatory a