Brashear v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL BRASHEAR, et al., ) No.: 1:20-cv-0505 -NONE -JLT ) 12 Plaintiffs, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING 13 v. ) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ) ARBITRATION 14 HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC., ) ) (Doc. Nos. 10, 25) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16 ) 17 Plaintiffs Michael Brashear, Benito Contreras, Kenneth Dollar, Terry Foster, and Ricardo 18 Rodriguez seek to hold Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., liable for wage and hour violations under 19 California law. (See Doc. No. 1.) Halliburton asserts that plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate claims arising 20 out of their employment and moved to compel arbitration of all non-PAGA claims presented in the 21 complaint filed in this court. (Doc. No. 10.) Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration was referred to 22 the assigned magistrate judge for the preparation of findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 16.) 23 The magistrate judge issued finding and recommendations that found plaintiffs were not 24 “transportation workers” and were therefore not exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act. (Doc. 25 at 25 6–10.) In addition, the magistrate judge concluded that plaintiffs and Halliburton had entered into valid 26 arbitration agreements, which encompassed the disputes at issue here. (See id. at 10–23.) Therefore, 27 the magistrate judge recommended Halliburton’s motion to compel arbitration be granted, and the 28 action be stayed while that arbitration is pending. (Id. at 24.) wOAOe UVM YU IN IN VR Oo PIR eV eS 1 On August 11, 2020, the parties were given fourteen days to file any objections to the finding: 2 recommendations. (Doc. 25 at 25.) In addition, the parties were informed that “failure to file 3 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.” (/d.) 4 || (citing Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th 5 || Cir. 2014)). To date, no objections have been filed. 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley Unitec 7 || School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this court conducted a de novo review of the case. 8 || Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations are supported b 9 the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 10 1. The findings and recommendations dated August 10, 2020 (Doc. No. 25) are 11 ADOPTED IN FULL; 12 2. The clauses governing amendment and termination are severed from the Dispute 13 Resolution Program; 14 3. Halliburton’s motion to compel arbitration (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED; 15 4. The matter is STAYED to allow for the completion of arbitration; 16 5. Within 120 days, and every 120 days thereafter, counsel SHALL file a joint status 17 report; 18 6. Within 10 days of the determination by the arbitrator, counsel SHALL file a joint stat 19 report; and 20 7. The court hereby retains jurisdiction to confirm the arbitration award and enter judgm«e 21 for the purpose of enforcement. 22 33 IT IS SO ORDERED. ~ 4 24 Dated: _ September 17, 2020 Aa Th Ts ae UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28