Schroeder et al v. AT&T Mobility LLC

Filing 9

ORDER re 4 Staying Arbitration. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 9/12/2011. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2011)

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

DEBORAH L. SCHROEDER, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13

No. C 11-04412 CRB
ORDER STAYING ARBITRATION

v.

14

AT&T MOBILITY LLC,

15

Defendant.

/

16
17

AT&T Mobility LLC (“AT&T”), filed a Complaint and request for preliminary

18

injunction in Case No. 11-3992 on August 12, 2011, requesting that this Court enjoin

19

pending arbitrations filed against AT&T. On September 6, 2011, Deborah Schroeder and

20

Astrid Mendoza filed a Petition to Enforce Arbitration Agreements in this case. On

21

September 8, 2011, the Court related this case to Case No. 11-3992. Dkt. 6. On September

22

8, 2011, Plaintiffs in this case filed an ex parte application for an Order to Show Cause

23

regarding the payment of arbitration fees. Dkt. 4. On September 9, 2011, Defendants moved

24

to Compel Arbitration in Case No. 11-3992.

25

The parties’ central disagreement in both actions is whether the arbitration demands

26

brought by Schroeder and Mendoza, as well as Laura Barrett and Leslie Bernardi (hereinafter

27

“customers”) exceed the scope of the arbitration agreements each customer signed with

28

AT&T. The customers’ arbitration demands challenge the proposed merger between AT&T
and T-Mobile under the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 18 and 26. Whether the claims in the

1

arbitration exceed the scope of the arbitration agreements will be the focus of the Court’s

2

hearing between the parties already scheduled for Friday, October 14, 2011.

3

The Court hereby stays any and all pending arbitrations between AT&T Mobility and
the customers, which also bars dismissal of such arbitrations, pending further order of this

5

Court. The Court finds such relief warranted by the standard of Alliance for the Wild

6

Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). In particular, both the dismissal

7

and prosecution of the arbitrations at issue, prior to a determination of the scope of the

8

arbitration agreements by this Court, will cause both parties irreparable harm. Moreover,

9

temporary maintenance of the status quo benefits the public interest given the broad national

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

4

impact of the proposed merger between AT&T Mobility and T-Mobile, which the customers

11

are challenging in their demands for arbitration.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15

CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 12, 2011

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\CRBALL\2011\4412\Order Staying Arbitration.frm

2