Raymond v. Compucom Systems, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 The California Labor and Workforce No. 2:21-cv-02327-KJM-KJN Development Agency, et al., 12 ORDER B Plaintiffs, 14 v: 15 Compucom Systems, Inc., 16 Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff William Raymond brings this employment action on his own behalf and under 19 | the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Defendant CompuCom Systems, Inc. 20 | moves to compel arbitration of all claims except the PAGA claim. See Mot. Compel, ECF No. 7. 21 | This court held its motion in abeyance pending a determination on whether Raymond assented to 22 | the arbitration agreement. Prior Order, ECF No. 20. The court set a bench trial in February 2023 23 | to resolve that dispute of fact. See Min. Order (Sept. 1, 2022), ECF No. 25. 24 CompuCom now moves for summary judgment, arguing there is no genuine dispute that 25 | an arbitration agreement formed between itself and Raymond. Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 28. In 26 | response, Raymond admits an arbitration agreement formed. See Judicial Admis., ECF No. 30. 27 | Asaresult, CompuCom’s motion for summary judgment is denied as moot and the bench 28 | trial is vacated. 1 In addition, because Raymond agreed to arbitrate his claims, those claims must be 2 dismissed. See Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 142 S. Ct. 1906, 1925 (2022); Dean Witter 3 Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 218–19 (1985); see also Judicial Admis. at 4; Reply at 2, 4 ECF No. 31. The court therefore grants CompuCom’s motion to compel Raymond in his 5 individual capacity to arbitrate his wage and hour claims and dismisses those claims 6 without prejudice. 7 The parties dispute what remains of this case and whether the PAGA claims can proceed 8 in Raymond’s absence. Plaintiffs1 also state they intend to meet and confer with defendant 9 regarding leave to amend the complaint, as well as a possible stay pending resolution of a current 10 California Supreme Court case. Judicial Admis. at 4–5. Defendant insists the non-individual 11 PAGA claim must also be dismissed. Reply at 3. Plaintiffs request a status conference; 12 defendant seeks a briefing schedule. Judicial Admis. at 6; Reply at 5. 13 The court grants CompuCom’s request for a briefing schedule and declines to stay 14 this action at this time. Plaintiffs may respond to the Reply at ECF No. 31 by December 9, 15 2022, and defendant may file a further response by December 16, 2022. These supplemental 16 briefs may not exceed five pages each and should address dismissal, case scheduling, a potential 17 stay, and potential amendments to the complaint. 18 The Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference currently set for January 12, 2023 at 2:30 19 p.m. remains on calendar. See Min. Order (Nov. 3, 2022), ECF No. 27. Given the court’s 20 decision above on supplemental briefing, the parties are relieved of their obligation to file a 21 further joint status report prior to the status (pretrial scheduling) conference. The court 22 directs the parties to meet and confer prior to the conference. If there are pertinent updates 23 from the meet and confer, the parties may file an updated joint status report seven (7) days prior 24 to the conference. 25 This order resolves ECF Nos. 7, 28. 1 The court notes the uncertainty as to who plaintiffs are at this juncture, including whether Raymond seeks to remain as plaintiff for the non-individual claims and/or seeks to litigate the claims on behalf of the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 DATED: November 29, 2022. 3 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE