Philo v. Gamestop Corp. et al

Filing 33

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 4/9/12; Plaintiff's ex parte application for an order shortening time is denied. Further, Plaintiff has not provided Defendants with a duly noticed opportunity to respond to his argument that Defen dants' motion to compel arbitration should not be decided until after the NLRB resolves Plaintiff's unfair labor practice charge. However, since Plaintiff argues in his opposition to Defendants' motion to compel arbitration that the cl ass action waiver in the parties' arbitration agreement is unenforceable because it violates the National Labor Relations Act, and the same issue is involved in Plaintiff's stay motion, the Court has decided to hear Plaintiff's motion to stay proceedings and Defendants motion to compel arbitration commencing at 9 a.m. on June 4, 2012; therefore, the hearing for Defendants' motion to compel arbitration scheduled for April 16, 2012 is vacated.(Matson, R)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ALEX PHILO,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

GAMESTOP CORP.; GAMESTOP, INC.,

11

Defendants.
________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-cv-03135-GEB-KJN
ORDER

12
13

On April 3, 2012, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application

14

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(c)(1)(C) and Local Rule 144(e).

15

Plaintiff seeks in the application an order shortening time on the

16

hearing of his motion to stay proceedings; and in the alternative, an

17

order continuing the scheduled April 16, 2012 hearing on Defendants’

18

noticed motion to compel arbitration, so that this motion is not

19

scheduled for hearing until after the National Labor Relations Board

20

(“NLRB”) resolves a labor charge Plaintiff filed with it on March 20,

21

2012.

22

Defendants counter that “Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate

23

any of the required elements to seek ‘extraordinary’” ex parte relief

24

and therefore “Plaintiff’s request for emergency relief should be

25

denied.” Defs.’ Opp’n 2:5-10 (citing Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Cont’l

26

Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (“Many ex parte motions

27

are denied, not because the underlying request is unwarranted, but

28

because the papers do not show that bypassing the regular noticed motion

1

1

procedure is necessary.”); and Charley v. Chevron USA, No. CV 10-5063,

2

2010 WL 2792486, *2 (C.D. Cal. July 13, 2010) (indicating Plaintiff’s

3

evidence should be evaluated for the purpose of determining whether

4

Plaintiff could have avoided the situation he opines justifies the ex

5

parte procedures he seeks)).

6

“Ex parte applications to shorten time will not be granted

7

except upon affidavit of counsel showing a satisfactory explanation for

8

the need for the issuance of such an order[.]” E.D. Cal. L.R. 144(e).

9

Christian Schreiber (“Schreiber”), counsel for Plaintiff, avers in his

10

declaration in support of the ex parte application that “Plaintiff is

11

unable to file a Motion to Stay Proceedings . . . and provide the

12

statutorily

13

Defendant[s’] Motion to Compel Arbitration is currently scheduled for

14

April 16, 2012.” (Schreiber Decl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff argues in his ex parte

15

application that

16
17
18
19

required

notice

to

Defendant[s],

as

the

hearing

on

[d]isallowing Plaintiff to stay this action or, in
the alternative, [disallowing] continuing the
[motion to compel arbitration scheduled for] April
16, 2012 until resolution of Plaintiff’s unfair
labor practice charge by the NLRB will result in
prejudice to Plaintiff because the NLRB has primary
jurisdiction
over
the
central
issue
in
Defendant[s’] Motion to Compel Arbitration.

20
21
22

(Pl.’s Ex Parte Appl. 1:13-16.)
However,

Plaintiff

has

not

provided

a

“satisfactory

23

explanation for the need” for an order shortening time, since Plaintiff

24

fails to explain why he could not have made the arguments he now makes

25

earlier in the case in a duly noticed manner. E.D. Cal. L.R. 144(e).

26

“[T]he evidence submitted by Plaintiff reveals that Plaintiff . . .

27

creat[ed] the crisis . . . [he asserts] requires [the] ex parte relief”

28

he seeks. Charley, 2010 WL 2792486 at *2. It is evident that Plaintiff
2

1

delayed filing a labor charge with the NLRB until after Defendants’

2

motion to compel arbitration was fully briefed and duly scheduled for

3

hearing. Therefore, Plaintiff’s ex parte application for an order

4

shortening time is denied.

5

Further, Plaintiff has not provided Defendants with a duly

6

noticed opportunity to respond to his argument that Defendants’ motion

7

to compel arbitration should not be decided until after the NLRB

8

resolves

9

Plaintiff argues in his opposition to Defendants’ motion to compel

10

arbitration that the class action waiver in the parties’ arbitration

11

agreement is unenforceable because it violates the National Labor

12

Relations Act, and the same issue is involved in Plaintiff’s stay

13

motion, the Court has decided to hear Plaintiff’s motion to stay

14

proceedings and Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration commencing at

15

9 a.m. on June 4, 2012; therefore, the hearing for Defendants’ motion to

16

compel arbitration scheduled for April 16, 2012 is vacated.

17

Dated:

Plaintiff’s

unfair

labor

practice

charge.

However,

April 9, 2012

18
19
20

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

since