Ticknor v. Choice Hotels Int`l, Inc., 265 F.3d 931, 936 (9th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1133, 122 pp.c. 1075, 151 L.Ed.2d 977 (2002);  Stein v. Geonerco, Inc., 105 Wash.App. 41, 45, 17 pp.3d 1266 (2001);  Tjart v. Smith Barney, Inc., 107 Wash.App. 885, 893, 28 p.3d 823 (2001), Review denied, 145 Wash.2d 1027, 42 P.3d 974 (2002), cert. denied, 537 U.P. 954, 123 pp.C.

424, 154 L.Ed.2d 303 (2002).   The party opposing arbitration is responsible for proving that the agreement is not enforceable.   See Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 92, 121 p.Ct. 513, 148 L.Ed.2d 373 (2000);  Stein, 105 Wash.App. vers 48, 17 p.3d 1266.

  Although Zuver urges us to apply Mendez to her case, she did not provide evidence comparable to that provided by Mendez and the information under oath.6 Even though Zuver had provided such evidence, Airtouch offered to “bear the costs of the arbitration” by paying arbitration fees.  Mendez, 111 Wash.App. at 470, 45 pp.3d 594.   Under the conditions of this case, we therefore conclude that the claim is controversial.7 See Large v. Conseco Fin. Servicing Corp., 292 F.3d 49, 56-57 (1 cir.2002) (“Conseco`s offer to bear the costs of the arbitration. discussed the issue of arbitration fees”.;  Nelson v. Insignia/Esg, Inc., 215 F.Supp.2d 143, 157 (D.D.C.2002) (“The defendant`s offer to pay all the costs and expenses of the arbitration effectively all of the applicant`s concerns about its ability to justify its rights”). .