Brashear v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL BRASHEAR, BENITO Case No. 1:20-cv-00505-JLT-CDB CONTRERAS, KENNETH DOLLAR, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 TERRY FOSTER, RICARDO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD AND RODRIGUEZ, DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL 13 ARBITRATION Plaintiffs, (Docs. 35, 39) 14 v. 15 HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, 16 and DOES 1 through 100, 17 Defendant. 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 Before the Court is Halliburton Energy Services’ motion to confirm the arbitration award 20 against Plaintiff Ricardo Rodriguez under the Federal Arbitration Act. (Doc. 35.) Rodriguez has 21 not filed an opposition to Halliburton’s motion. The Court GRANTS the motion to confirm the 22 arbitration award and dismisses the action between Rodriguez and Halliburton with prejudice. 23 II. BACKGROUND 24 In their first amended complaint, Brashear, Contreras, Dollar, Foster, and Rodriguez filed 25 their complaint against Halliburton, asserting the following claims: (1) minimum wage violations; 26 (2) overtime and double time violations; (3) controlled standby and/or reporting time violations; 27 (4) quantum meruit; (5) inaccurate wage statements under Cal. Labor Code § 226; (6) business 28 expense reimbursement violations under Cal. Labor Code § 2802; (7) Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 1 § 17200 violations; (8) statutory penalties under Cal. Labor Code §§ 201, 203; (9) statutory 2 penalties under Cal. Labor Code § 558; and (10) claims arising under the Labor Code Private 3 Attorney General Act (“PAGA”). (Docs. 1 at ¶¶ 16–42, 8 at ¶¶ 16–54.) After Halliburton moved 4 to compel arbitration of the non-PAGA claims (Doc. 10), the Court referred the matter to 5 arbitration and stayed the action pending arbitral resolution. (Docs. 25, 26.) 6 Rodriguez filed a Demand for Arbitration with the American Arbitration Association. 7 (Doc. 35-1 at 2.) Following discovery, Halliburton filed a motion for summary judgment before 8 the arbitrator as to on all of Rodriguez’s claims, which Rodriguez opposed. (Doc. 35-1 at 3.) The 9 arbitrator granted Halliburton’s motion for summary judgment on all claims and issued a final 10 award. (Doc. 35-2 at 27.) Halliburton filed this motion to confirm the final arbitration award. 11 (Doc. 35 at 1.) 12 III. DISCUSSION 13 A. Confirmation of the Arbitration Award 14 The FAA permits any party to apply to the court within one year of the arbitration award 15 to confirm, vacate, modify, or correct the award. See 9 U.S.C. § 9. Under the FAA, “‘judicial 16 review of an arbitration award is both limited and highly deferential.’” Sayta v. Martin, No. 17 16-CV-03775-LB, 2017 WL 491161, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2017) (quoting Sheet Metal 18 Worker’s Int’l Ass’n Local 359 v. Madison Indus., Inc., 84 F.3d 1186, 1190 (9th Cir. 1996)). A 19 court must grant a party’s motion to confirm an arbitration award if: (1) the parties have agreed 20 that the court may enter judgment upon the award; (2) a party motions the court for confirmation 21 of the arbitration award within one year of the award’s issuance; and (3) the court does not 22 vacate, modify, or correct the award. See id. The court may only vacate, modify, or correct the 23 award if there is a technical error, any or all of the award is not subject to arbitration, or the award 24 “evidences affirmative misconduct in the arbitral process or the final result that is completely 25 irrational or exhibits a manifest disregard for the law.” See Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache 26 Trade Servs., Inc., 341 F.3d 987, 997 (9th Cir. 2003); see also 9 U.S.C. §§ 10–11. 27 Halliburton filed the motion to confirm within one year of the issuance of the arbitration 28 award and none of the conditions permitting vacation, modification, or correction of the award 1 | are present. (Doc. 35-1 at 2.) There is no evidence of technical errors, issues beyond the scope of 2 | arbitration, affirmative misconduct, or an arbitral process or result that is irrational or disregards 3 | the law. Further, Rodriguez did not file any opposition to Halliburton’s motion and thus, appears 4 | not to contest its validity. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Halliburton’s motion to confirm the 5 | arbitration award. 6 | B. Dismissal of Rodriguez’s PAGA Claim 7 Halliburton filed a motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiffs’ individual PAGA claims and 8 | to dismiss the representative PAGA claims. (Doc. 39.) Plaintiffs opposed the motion. (Doc. 43.) 9 | Following these filings, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of Plaintiffs Kenneth Dollar, 10 | Michael Brashear, Benito Contreras, and Terry Foster, and the Court terminated the action with 11 | prejudice for each of these plaintiffs. (Docs. 44, 45, 46, 47.) Thus, only the action between 12 | Rodriguez and Halliburton remains. 13 Although Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to compel arbitration of the 14 | individual PAGA claim, that opposition pertained only to the Plaintiffs now dismissed from the 15 | action. (Doc. 43 at 8.) The opposition clarified that because “[t]he resolution in Rodriguez has 16 || already been fully reached,” “[iJt is not necessary to decide th[e] motion” on behalf of Rodriguez. 17 | (Doc. 43 at 8.) Rodriguez recognizes that the arbitration award—confirmed by this Court— 18 | resolved his claims. (See Docs. 43 at 8; 26 at 1-2.) Consequently, the individual Rodriguez’s 19 | PAGA claim, which the Court stayed pending arbitration, is now dismissed with prejudice. (See 20 | Docs. 43 at 8; 26 at 1-2.) Because no claim remains in this case, the Clerk of the Court is 21 | directed to close this case. 22 CONCLUSION 23 For the reasons set forth above: 24 1. Defendant Halliburton’s motion to confirm the final arbitration award against 25 Rodriguez is GRANTED, and the action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 26 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2g | Dated: _September 6, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE