Mathias v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.

Filing 55

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 5/12/11 ORDERING that all proceedings in this case are STAYED. The status conference set for 5/16/11 is VACATED. The clerk is directed to ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSE this case. Plaintiff shall inform the court to reopen this case within 14 days of a final decision on defendant's appeal. CASE ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11
12

RYAN MATHIAS, individually,
and on behalf of other
members of the general
public similarly situated,
as an aggrieved employee
pursuant to the Private
Attorney General Act ("PAGA"),

13

Plaintiff,

14

v.

CIV. NO. S-10-1476 LKK/KJM
15
16
17

RENT-A-CENTER, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

O R D E R

Defendants.
/

18
19

Plaintiff in the above captioned case brings class wage and

20

hour claims against his former employer. On September 15, 2010, the

21

court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration on the

22

grounds that the class action clause in the arbitration agreement

23

is unenforceable under California law. Defendant appealed this

24

order to the Ninth Circuit. On October 28, 2010, the court denied

25

defendant’s motion for a stay pending appeal on the grounds that

26

the balance of hardships did not tip sharply in defendant’s favor.
It did, however, grant a limited stay so that defendant may seek

1

a further stay from the Ninth Circuit. Defendant sought such a stay

2

and the Circuit granted a limited stay of appellate proceedings

3

pending resolution of AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 130 S.Ct 3322

4

(2010). The Circuit did not stay proceedings before the district

5

court. On April 27, 2011, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in

6

Concepcion deciding that California law finding that some class

7

action

8

unconscionable is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. This

9

decision raises a very serious question of whether California law

waivers

some

in

class

consumer

11

agreements

12

unenforceable under the so-called Gentry1 factors may also be

13

preempted.

unenforceable

in
as

employment

are

finding

be

waivers

agreements

10

to

action

arbitration

arbitration

unconscionable

or

14

For the foregoing reasons, the court ORDERS as follows:

15

(1)

as

16

In light of the Court’s recent ruling, all proceedings
in the above captioned case are STAYED.

17

(2)

The status conference set for May 16, 2011 is VACATED.

18

(3)

The Clerk of Court is instructed to ADMINISTRATIVELY

19

CLOSE this case. Plaintiff shall inform the court to re-

20

open this case within fourteen (14) days of a final

21

decision on defendant’s appeal.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

DATED:

May 12, 2011.

24
25
26

1

Gentry v. Super. Ct., 42 Cal. 4th 443 (2007).
2