Harper v. Charter Communications, LLC ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 LIONEL HARPER, DANIEL SINCLAIR, No. 2:19-cv-00902 WBS DMC HASSAN TURNER, LUIS VAZQUEZ, and 13 PEDRO ABASCAL, individually and on behalf of all others 14 similarly situated and all ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF DANIEL aggrieved employees, SINCLAIR’S MOTION TO LIFT THE 15 STAY OF HIS CLAIMS Plaintiffs, 16 v. 17 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, 18 Defendant. 19 20 ----oo0oo---- 21 22 Plaintiffs Lionel Harper, Daniel Sinclair, Hassan 23 Turner, Luis Vazquez, and Pedro Abascal (“plaintiffs”) brought 24 this putative class action against their former employer, Charter 25 Communications, alleging various violations of the California 26 Labor Code. On October 13, 2021, the court granted Charter’s 27 motions to compel arbitration of plaintiff Turner, Vazquez, and 28 Abascal’s claims, and to compel arbitration of plaintiff Harper’s 1 claims save for his PAGA claim. (See Docket No. 202.) In that 2 order, the court also issued a temporary stay of plaintiff 3 Sinclair’s claims pending arbitration of the other plaintiffs’ 4 claims. (See id.) 5 In the instant motion, Sinclair argues that, because in 6 its order the court resolved issues regarding arbitrability of 7 the other plaintiffs’ claims itself rather than delegating them 8 to an arbitrator, there no longer exists a reason to delay 9 consideration of his claims or a motion for class certification. 10 (See Mot. at 6 (Docket No. 211).) He states that during oral 11 argument on October 4, 2021, his counsel only expressed desire 12 for a stay for long enough for Sinclair to determine whether to 13 proceed without the other plaintiffs as proposed class 14 representatives and that, because those plaintiffs are 15 arbitrating their claims, he seeks to proceed with the action and 16 present a renewed motion for class certification. (See id.) He 17 also notes that, because he did not sign an arbitration 18 agreement, unlike the other plaintiffs, section 3 of the Federal 19 Arbitration Act does not provide alternative grounds to stay his 20 claims pending arbitration of the other plaintiffs’ claims. (See 21 id. at 8-9.) 22 As part of its inherent power to control its docket, 23 the court may stay an action at its discretion, based upon the 24 circumstances of the case before it. See Nken v. Holder, 556 25 U.S. 418, 433-34 (2009); Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254- 26 55 (1936). By the same token, “[t]he same court that imposes a 27 stay of litigation has the inherent power and discretion to lift 28 the stay.” CE Res., Inc. v. Elite Cont’g Educ., Inc., 2:15-cv- 1 01908 WBS AC, 2016 WL 3653446, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 6, 2016) 2 (quoting Digit. Software Servs., Inc. v. Ent. Programs, Inc., 3 2:09-cv-02763 TLN DAD, 2014 WL 5816929, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 4 2014)). “The court may lift the stay ‘[w]hen circumstances have 5 changed such that the court’s reasons for imposing the stay no 6 longer exist or are inappropriate.’” Id. (alteration in 7 original). In general, district courts have “broad discretion” 8 to control their dockets through use of stays. See Clinton v. 9 Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 683 (1997). 10 The court stayed plaintiff Sinclair’s claims at his 11 counsel’s request. (See Docket No. 202 at 24.) Sinclair’s 12 subsequent request that the court lift the stay thus represents a 13 change of “circumstances . . . such that the court’s reasons for 14 imposing the stay no longer exist,” CE Res., Inc., 2014 WL 15 3653446, at *1, contrary to Charter’s contentions, (see Opp. to 16 Mot. at 8 (Docket No. 215)). For this reason, and because, “when 17 feasible, it is preferable to proceed with litigation of . . . 18 nonarbitrable claims,” JNK Ent. v. SP Sales & Ent., 15-cv-01908 19 RGK (FFMx), 2015 WL 13283845, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2015) 20 (citation omitted), the court will grant Sinclair’s motion to 21 lift the stay. 22 It is therefore HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff 23 Sinclair’s motion to lift the stay of his claims be, and the same 24 hereby is, GRANTED. 25 The parties are hereby directed to stipulate to a 26 briefing schedule and hearing date for Sinclair’s renewed motion 27 for class certification. 28 /// nen nee en ene nn nn OIE I ESE IEE II I EEO 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 3 bet¢ □ ak. 1d 4 Dated: November 30, 2021 WILLIAMB.SHUBB . . .}.}.}.}© 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28