Harper v. Charter Communications, LLC ( 2023 )

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 aggrieved employees, 15 Plaintiffs, 16 v. 17 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, 18 Defendant. 19 20 ----oo0oo---- 21 Presently before the court is a series of motions filed 22 by plaintiffs. The first is plaintiff Harper’s motion to vacate 23 the court’s order compelling Harper to arbitrate his individual 24 claims, to lift the stay of Harper’s individual claims, and for 25 attorneys’ fees. (Docket No. 316.) The second is plaintiffs’ 26 motion to lift the stay in its entirety and reconsider various 27 prior orders. (Docket No. 335.) The third is Harper’s motion 28 1 for attorneys’ fees in relation to defendant’s attempts to 2 arbitrate Harper’s PAGA claim. (Docket No. 341). 3 I. Procedural History 4 On October 10, 2021, the court stayed plaintiffs’ 5 individual claims and ordered Harper, Turner, Vazquez, and 6 Abascal’s claims to arbitration.1 (Docket No. 202.) Harper’s 7 PAGA claims were allowed to proceed in court. (Id.) A month 8 later, the court lifted the stay as to Sinclair’s claims at 9 counsel’s request. (Docket No. 223.) 10 On January 6, 2022, the court stayed Harper’s PAGA 11 claims (Claim 10) pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Viking 12 River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 142 S. Ct. 1906 (2022). (Docket 13 No. 261.) On March 4, 2022, plaintiffs successfully moved for 14 interlocutory appeal of the court’s order compelling their 15 arbitrations. (Docket No. 288.) The court accordingly stayed 16 the entire case. (Id.) Plaintiffs then lost their appeal. 17 (Docket No. 290.) 18 On June 15, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a decision 19 in Viking River Cruises. The court then lifted the stay only to 20 hear parties’ arguments regarding the effect of Viking River 21 Cruises and Sinclair’s then-pending class certification motion. 22 (Docket No. 292.) Thereafter, the court denied defendant’s 23 motion to compel arbitration of Harper’s PAGA claim. (Docket No. 24 300.) Defendant filed an interlocutory appeal of that decision 25 (Docket No. 306), and the court in response stayed the entire 26 1 Sinclair did not sign an arbitration agreement, but the 27 court also stayed his claims at his counsel’s request. (See Docket No. 202 at 24.) 28 1 case again on September 16, 2022. (Docket No. 311.) 2 On January 12, 2023, the court continued the stay 3 because of defendant’s still-pending appeal regarding Harper’s 4 PAGA claims; Harper, Turner, Vazquez, and Abascal’s pending 5 arbitrations; and Sinclair’s pending but stayed claims before the 6 court. (Docket No. 323.) The January 12 stay has remained in 7 effect since. 8 In August and September of this year, Turner and 9 Vazquez’s arbitrations, respectively, concluded with final 10 judgments entered. (Docket Nos. 325, 330.) Turner and Vazquez 11 have appealed. (Docket Nos. 326, 331.) 12 On October 25, 2023, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the 13 court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of 14 Harper’s PAGA claim. (Docket No. 342.) 15 II. Motion to Lift Stay and Reconsider Various Orders 16 Harper, Sinclair, and Abascal request that the court 17 lift the stay of their individual, class, and PAGA claims. (Mot. 18 to Lift Stay (Docket No. 335).) They also request 19 reconsideration of various prior orders. (Id.) The court will 20 address the requests for reconsideration first, followed by 21 plaintiffs’ request to lift the stay of their claims. 22 A. Reconsideration of Prior Orders 23 Plaintiffs request that the court reconsider the 24 following orders: order compelling arbitration of Harper’s and 25 Abascal’s claims (Docket No. 202); order dismissing plaintiffs’ 26 claims for restitution under the Labor Code (Docket No. 56); and 27 order striking plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief under 28 the UCL (id.). 1 1. Order Compelling Arbitration for Harper and 2 Abascal 3 Plaintiffs move for reconsideration based on a recent 4 decision from the Ninth Circuit. 5 On September 7, 2022, the court denied defendant’s 6 motion to compel arbitration of Harper’s PAGA claims. (Docket 7 No. 300.) Shortly thereafter, defendant filed an interlocutory 8 appeal of that order. (Docket No. 306.) On October 3, 2023, the 9 Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum that affirmed the court’s 10 denial, but on grounds different from the court’s. (Ninth 11 Circuit Order (Docket No. 333).) The Ninth Circuit reasoned that 12 the arbitration agreement’s Section P, which excludes from 13 arbitration any claim already filed with a court, excludes 14 Harper’s PAGA claims because they were filed in court before 15 Harper signed the arbitration agreement. (Id. ¶¶ 2-3.) 16 Plaintiffs now request reconsideration of the court’s order 17 compelling Harper and Abascal to arbitrate their non-PAGA claims 18 in light of this opinion.2 (Docket Nos. 162, 165, 202.) 19 The Ninth Circuit Order directs the court to fully 20 effect the plain language of Section P. Accordingly, the court 21 concludes that Section P excludes all of Harper’s claims from 22 arbitration, as they all predate the effective date of the 23 arbitration agreement.3 The court will therefore vacate its 24 2 Defendant does not oppose reconsideration of the court’s order as to Harper’s non-PAGA claims. (Docket No. 339 at 25 4 n.5.) 26 3 Harper filed his initial complaint on May 3, 2019. 27 (Docket No. 1-1.) Harper signed the arbitration agreement on May 23, 2021. (Docket No. 172-4 ¶ 5.) 28 1 order compelling Harper into arbitration.4 2 However, the court will not reconsider its order as to 3 Abascal. The court already explained why Abascal, who joined 4 this action two years after he signed the arbitration agreement, 5 may not “piggyback” off of Harper’s initially-filed complaint 6 just to avail himself of Section P. (See Docket No. 202 at 12-14 7 (“To allow signatories to avoid arbitration of otherwise-covered 8 claims by joining suits filed by individuals not party to the 9 contract would plainly frustrate th[e] intention [to require 10 arbitration of claims].”).) Nothing in the Ninth Circuit Order 11 disturbs this reasoning. 12 Plaintiffs alternatively request certification for 13 immediate appeal regarding Section P’s applicability to Abascal’s 14 arbitration. (Docket No. 335 at 9.) A district court may 15 certify for appeal an interlocutory order if the court is “of the 16 opinion that such order [1] involves a controlling question of 17 law [2] as to which there is substantial ground for difference of 18 opinion and that [3] an immediate appeal from the order may 19 materially advance the ultimate outcome of the litigation.” 28 20 U.S.C. § 1292(b). 21 Defendant reports that Abascal’s arbitration is set to 22 4 Harper also moves for the court to vacate its order 23 compelling arbitration on separate grounds. (Docket No. 316.) In that motion, Harper alleges that defendant breached the 24 parties’ arbitration agreement by making a late payment to the arbitrator. (Id.) Harper also requests attorneys’ fees as a 25 sanction for defendant’s alleged failure to timely pay arbitrator 26 fees. (Id.) Finally, Harper requests the court to lift the stay of his claims. (Id.) Because the court vacates its order 27 compelling Harper to arbitrate on other grounds, the court will deny Harper’s motion as moot. 28 1 conclude in February 2024. (Docket No. 339 at 6 n.7.) 2 Thereafter, Abascal may appeal the arbitration’s verdict as 3 Turner and Vazquez have already done. (Docket Nos. 326, 331.) 4 Accordingly, the court will not certify this issue for immediate 5 appeal because doing so would not materially affect the pace or 6 ultimate outcome of this litigation. 7 2. Order Dismissing/Striking Relief 8 Plaintiffs also request the court to reconsider its 9 order (Docket No. 56) dismissing their claim for restitution and 10 striking their request for injunctive relief under the UCL. 11 (Docket No. 335.) The court declines to do so. 12 Plaintiffs’ request for reconsideration regarding 13 restitution is premised on the California Supreme Court’s recent 14 decision in Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Servs., Inc., 13 Cal. 5th 93 15 (2022), which held in relevant part that premium wages are wages 16 under the Labor Code. However, the court’s prior order 17 explicitly stated that its disposition on whether plaintiffs may 18 claim restitution for unpaid premium wages did not depend on the 19 resolution of this question.5 (Docket No. 56 at 9.) 20 Accordingly, the court will not reconsider its order dismissing 21 plaintiffs’ claim for restitution. 22 Plaintiffs’ request for reconsideration regarding 23 injunctive relief under the UCL is also premised on a 24 5 The court even recognized in its February 2020 opinion that the California Supreme Court had granted review in Naranjo; 25 that the court would assume, without deciding, that premium wages 26 are wages under the Labor Code; and that this still had no bearing on its ultimate conclusion that “employees have no 27 ownership interest in premium wages awarded for a § 226.7 violation . . . .” (Docket No. 56 at 9 n.1, 10.) 28 1 subsequently issued opinion: Magadia v. Wal-Mart Assoc., Inc., 2 999 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2021). Per Magadia, plaintiffs argue that 3 a lack of Article III standing to seek “a particular form of 4 relief for a particular violation does not require that the 5 plaintiff’s request be stricken or dismissed.” (Docket No. 335 6 at 10-11.) However, even plaintiffs acknowledge that Magadia 7 merely “reiterated” this principle, and they otherwise fail to 8 raise any substantive change in law or fact justifying 9 reconsideration of this issue. Accordingly, the court will not 10 reconsider its order regarding injunctive relief. 11 B. Lifting Stay 12 Plaintiffs move to lift the stay in its entirety. 13 (Docket No. 335.) 14 Harper. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the court’s order 15 denying arbitration of Harper’s PAGA claim. (Docket Nos. 333, 16 342.) In addition, pursuant to the Ninth Circuit Order, the 17 court has reconsidered and vacated its order compelling Harper to 18 arbitrate his individual claims. (See supra, § II.A.1.) 19 Accordingly, the court no longer has a basis for staying any of 20 Harper’s claims, at least any basis that relates specifically to 21 Harper. 22 Abascal. Because the court denies Abascal’s request to 23 revisit the order compelling him to arbitrate his claims or 24 alternatively certify the issue for immediate appeal (see supra, 25 § II.A.1), the court will continue its stay of Abascal’s claims 26 while arbitration continues. 27 Sinclair. Sinclair’s claims have been stayed since 28 April 2022 (Docket No. 288), even though his claims have never 1 been subject to arbitration (Docket No. 223). 2 Taking the above developments into consideration, the 3 court will, in its discretionary power, lift the stay as to all 4 of Harper’s and Sinclair’s claims. The court will continue the 5 stay of Abascal’s claims while Abascal’s arbitration continues. 6 III. Harper’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees 7 Harper requests attorneys’ fees incurred in connection 8 with defendant’s multiple attempts to compel Harper to arbitrate 9 his individual and PAGA claims.6 (Docket No. 341.) Harper’s 10 request also encompasses attorneys’ fees associated with this 11 very motion and the other motions concurrently before the court. 12 (Id.) 13 The court will deny Harper’s motion for attorneys’ fees 14 at this time without prejudice. The court has not rendered final 15 judgment as to Harper, and Harper presents no compelling reasons 16 why the court should entertain motions for interim awards now, as 17 opposed to when the court enters final judgment. 18 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Harper’s motion to vacate 19 the order compelling his arbitration and lift the stay (Docket 20 No. 316) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED as moot. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to lift 22 the stay and reconsider various orders (Docket No. 335) be, and 23 the same hereby is, GRANTED in the following respects: (1) the 24 stay (Docket No. 323) as to all of Harper’s and Sinclair’s claims 25 is lifted; and (2) the court’s order compelling arbitration 26 6 This is separate and apart from Harper’s request for 27 attorneys’ fees as sanctions in relation to defendant’s alleged breach of the arbitration agreement. (Docket No. 316.) 28 eee en een en EE EIN I IEE OSI OS II OD OE 1 (Docket No. 202) is vacated solely as to Harper’s claims. 2 Plaintiffs’ motion is otherwise DENIED. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Harper’s motion for 4 attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses (Docket No. 341) be, and the 5 same hereby is, DENIED without prejudice. 6 The parties shall submit a joint status report pursuant 7 to Local Rule 240 by January 2, 2024. A status conference shall 8 be held before the court on January 16, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. 9 Dated: December 14, 2023 fy ZL * ak. 10 WILLIAMB.SHUBB □ 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28