Lemberg v. San Francisco Opera Association

Filing 25

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS; VACATING HEARING DATE; STAYING ACTION PENDING ARBITRATION; CONDITIONALLY CLOSING CASE. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 01/19/2018. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2018)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ANN LEMBERG,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

v.
SAN FRANCISCO OPERA
ASSOCIATION,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

Case No. 17-cv-06641-MMC
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
DISMISS; VACATING HEARING DATE;
STAYING ACTION PENDING
ARBITRATION; CONDITIONALLY
CLOSING CASE
Re: Dkt. No. 20

Before the Court is defendant San Francisco Opera Association’s Motion to
Dismiss, filed December 20, 2017, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), (b)(3), and (b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff Ann Lemberg has filed opposition, to which
defendant has replied. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in
opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matter appropriate for determination on the
parties’ respective written submissions, hereby VACATES the hearing scheduled for
January 26, 2018, and rules as follows.
For the reasons stated by defendant, the Court finds plaintiff’s claims are subject
to an arbitration provision contained in the “Submission Release and Waiver” entered into
by the parties on January 26, 2017. See Geier v. m-Qube Inc., 824 F.3d 797, 799 (9th
Cir. 2016) (holding “federal district courts must compel arbitration if (1) a valid agreement
to arbitrate exists and (2) the dispute falls within the scope of that agreement”).
Although, in moving under Rule 12(b)(1), defendant does not expressly seek an
order compelling arbitration, the Court construes such motion as a petition to compel
arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). See 9 U.S.C. §§ 3, 4; see

1

also, e.g., Figuerola Peruvians, L.L.C. v. N. Am. Peruvian Horse Ass’n, No. 09-CV-

2

04511-MMM, 2009 WL 10673941, at *4, *9 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2009) (construing Rule

3

12(b)(1) motion to dismiss as petition to compel arbitration, denying motion to dismiss,

4

and staying action pending arbitration proceedings) (collecting cases).

5
6

Accordingly, defendant’s motion is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part,
as follows:

7

1. To the extent defendant seeks to compel arbitration, the motion is hereby

8

GRANTED, and the instant action is hereby STAYED pending arbitration, pursuant

9

to § 3 of the FAA.
2. To the extent defendant seeks dismissal of the instant action, the motion is

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

hereby DENIED.

12

Lastly, in light of the above-referenced stay, it is hereby ORDERED that the case

13

be CLOSED for statistical purposes only. Should further proceedings therein become

14

necessary, either party may initiate such proceedings in the same manner as if the case

15

had not been statistically closed.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: January 19, 2018
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2