Rowland v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC et al
Filing
39
ORDER signed by District Judge Vince Chhabria on 4/9/19 GRANTING Motion to Compel Arbitration 6 . The case is dismissed without prejudice. (Kaminski, H)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JAMES ROWLAND,
Case No. 16-cv-02135-VC
Plaintiff,
v.
CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES
CALIFORNIA, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
COMPEL ARBITRATION;
DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
Re: Dkt. No. 6
CarMax’s motion to compel arbitration is granted, and the case is dismissed without
prejudice. Recognizing that Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018), forecloses his
argument that class arbitration waivers are unenforceable, Rowland instead argues that
compelling arbitration will violate his First and Fifth Amendment rights. But enforcement of an
arbitration agreement under the Federal Arbitration Act does not qualify as state action, and
Rowland therefore cannot challenge it on constitutional grounds. See Roberts v. AT&T Mobility
LLC, 877 F.3d 833, 844-45 (2017).
Rowland also contends that the parties’ Dispute Resolution Agreement is
unconscionable. Even if requiring prospective employees to request a copy of supplemental
dispute resolution rules creates a modicum of procedural unconscionability, the agreement is not
substantively unconscionable. Rowland suggests that the agreement precludes employees from
filing a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, but it in fact expressly preserves an
employee’s right to seek relief from any government agency, including the NLRB. Nor is it clear
that such a prohibition would render the entire agreement unenforceable. Cf. Sakkab v. Luxottica
Retail N. Am, Inc., 803 F.3d 425, 440 (9th Cir. 2015). Absent a showing of substantive
unconscionability, Rowland’s argument fails. See, e.g., Pinnacle Museum Tower Ass’n v.
Pinnacle Mkt. Dev. (US), LLC, 55 Cal. 4th 223, 247 (2012).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 9, 2019
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?