DuFour et al v. Be, LLC et al

Filing 174

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer re #171 Motion to Clarify. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

ORDER CLARIFYING THIS
COURT’S SEPTEMBER 2, 2011
ORDER COMPELLING
ARBITRATION

Plaintiffs,

13
14

No. C 09-3770 CRB

TIMOTHY DUFOUR, et al.,

v.
BE LLC et al.,

15

Defendants.

/

16

Defendant Monterey Financial Services, Inc. (“Monterey”) has moved to clarify the

17
18

portion of this Court’s September 2, 2011, order (dkt. 158) regarding fee shifting. Monterey

19

argues that this Court stated during the hearing that neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants should

20

be assessed fees under public interest statutes such as the UCL, CLRA, and CCRAA, yet the

21

Order says that only Plaintiffs should not be assessed fees. See Mot. (dkt. 171). Plaintiffs

22

disagree.
The Court’s Order was intended to sever the applicability of the arbitration

23
24

agreement’s fee shifting provision as applied to claims under public interest statutes.

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//

1

Accordingly, as to claims under the public interest statutes, each side is entitled to whatever

2

fees they would be entitled to in the absence of the fee-shifting provision.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: December 13, 2012

CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\CRBALL\2009\3770\order clarifying arbitration order.wpd

2