Snipes v. Dollar Tree Distribution, Inc.

Filing 19

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 5/26/15 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 8 Application for Ex Parte Relief is DENIED. Counsel for Plaintiff is cautioned to more closely heed filings in this matter in the future so as to avoid minimizing waste of the Court's, as well as the parties', time and resources. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TERRY T. SNIPES, SR., an individual,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:15-cv-00878-MCE-DAD

v.

ORDER

DOLLAR TREE DISTRIBUTION, INC.,
a Virginia corporation, and DOES 1
through 50, Inclusive,,

16

Defendant.

17
On May 8, 2015, Plaintiff Terry T. Snipes, Sr. (“Plaintiff”) filed an ex parte

18
19

application requesting this this Court enforce a temporary restraining order (“TRO”)

20

obtained by Plaintiff against Defendant Dollar Tree Distribution, Inc. (“Dollar Tree”) in

21

state court prior to the removal of this action here on April 23, 2015. Alternatively,

22

Plaintiff requested that the Court issue its own TRO requiring Defendant to distribute an

23

informational notice to putative class and collective action members required by

24

Defendant to enter into arbitration agreements. Plaintiff contends that ongoing requests

25

that employees enter into arbitration agreements, when Defendant had actual or

26

constructive notice that Plaintiff intended to file a wage and hour class action, were

27

misleading, deceptive and coercive.

28

///
1

1

By Minute Order issued May 15, 2015, this Court informed the parties that it

2

would treat Plaintiff’s request as an application for TRO in federal court. A hearing on

3

Plaintiff’s proposed TRO was set for May 21, 2015.

4

Plaintiff’s claim of imminent and irreparable injury was predicated on arbitration

5

agreements becoming binding unless employees exercised an opt-out provision by

6

May 31, 2015. According to Plaintiff, without receiving an informational notice informing

7

employees of the pending class action, they could waive their right to participate in a

8

collective action without any knowledge of Plaintiff’s claims.

9

By Opposition filed May 19, 2015, Defendant claimed unequivocally that with

10

regard to employees hired before October 6, 2014 (when Defendant began requiring

11

new employees to sign an arbitration agreement as a precondition to employment), it

12

could “not compel any [such] employee covered by the instant lawsuit to arbitrate claims

13

alleged in this lawsuit regardless of whether they do not opt out of the arbitration

14

program.” Def.’s Opp., ECF No. 15, at 1:12-14. As to new employees, Defendant cited

15

case law on the propriety of requesting an arbitration agreement prior to hire.

16

Given these representations, the Court queried Plaintiff’s Counsel at the May 21,

17

2015 hearing on how the imminent and irreparable harm component of a TRO was

18

satisfied. Counsel responded that Defendant’s representations satisfied their concerns

19

in requesting a TRO, and claimed not to have noticed Defendant’s assurance that the

20

arbitration agreement would not be enforced. As such, Plaintiff’s Application for Ex Parte

21

Relief (ECF No. 8) is DENIED. Counsel for Plaintiff is cautioned to more closely heed

22

filings in this matter in the future so as to avoid minimizing waste of the Court’s, as well

23

as the parties’, time and resources.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated: May 26, 2015

26
27
28
2