Hall-Johnson v. City and County of San Francisco, et al.

Filing 70

ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler denying 55 Request for Appointment of Mediator/Arbitrator; denying 58 Motion Seeking Exemption from Electronic Public Access Fee and CM/ECF System Fees; denying 67 Verified Petition to Appoint Arbitrator. As set forth in the attached order, the court denies Ms. Hall-Johnson's pending motions. Regarding her request to appoint a mediator, the court has scheduled a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman as mediator on Augu st 28, 2018. Regarding her request to appoint an arbitrator, she has not shown that the defendants have agreed to submit to arbitration, and "a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit.&q uot; Kramer v. Toyota Motor Corp., 705 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2013). Regarding her request for a waiver of ECF and PACER fees, the court previously granted her permission to be an e-filer, and as such, she can file documents for free and ac cess and download one free copy of each newly filed document in this action when it is filed. (The court advises Ms. Hall-Johnson that she should download and save a copy of each newly filed document in this action for her records and future reference, as CM/ECF may impose a fee for a litigant to access a document a second time.) Ms. Hall has not established the need for an exemption of fees beyond that. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

CARNEICE KATHRINE HALLJOHNSON,

12

Plaintiff,
13
v.
14

Case No. 18-cv-01409-LB
ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS
Re: ECF No. 55, 58, 67

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Carneice Hall-Johnson has filed a number of motions that the court addresses here.

19
20
21

ANALYSIS
First, Ms. Hall-Johnson filed a request for appointment of a mediator/arbitrator.1 The court has

22
23

scheduled a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman as mediator on

24

August 28, 2018. To the extent that Ms. Hall-Johnson asks to compel the parties to submit to

25
26
27

Request for Appointment of Mediator/Arbitrator – ECF No. 55. Citations refer to material in the
Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of
documents.
1

28
ORDER – No. 18-cv-01409-LB

1

arbitration, the court denies her motion. “„[A]rbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot

2

be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit.‟” Kramer v.

3

Toyota Motor Corp., 705 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting United Steelworkers v.

4

Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582 (1960)). Ms. Hall-Johnson has not shown that

5

the defendants have agreed to submit to arbitration here.
Second, Ms. Hall-Johnson filed a motion seeking exemption from electronic public access fees

6
7

and CM/ECF fees. The court denies her motion. The court has previously granted Ms. Hall-

8

Johnson permission for electronic case filing, and consequently, the pending motion relates solely

9

to fees, not access.2 Ms. Hall-Johnson asks for an exemption for fees associated with filing
electronic documents in this action. But there are no fees associated with her filing documents in

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

this action. Ms. Hall-Johnson then asks for an exemption for fees associated with reviewing or

12

accessing documents in this action. Ms. Hall-Johnson has previously received a paper copy of

13

every document filed by the court or the defendants, and now that she is an electronic filer, she

14

will be able to download one free copy of each newly filed document in this action when it is

15

filed.3 Ms. Hall-Johnson can therefore file, review, and access the documents in this action without

16

paying a fee. To the extent that Ms. Hall-Johnson asks for a waiver of fees to use ECF or PACER

17

beyond this, she has not established “that an exemption is necessary in order to avoid

18

unreasonable burdens and to promote public access to information.” Cf. Emrit v. Central Payment

19

Corp., No. 14-cv-00042-JCS, 2014 WL 1028388, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2014).
Third, Ms. Hall-Johnson filed a petition to appoint an arbitrator.4 The court denies her motion.

20
21

As discussed above, the defendants cannot be required to submit to arbitration absent their

22

agreement. Ms. Hall-Johnson says she has a written agreement to arbitrate with her proposed

23
24
25

2

Order – ECF No. 65.

3

26
27

The court advises Ms. Hall-Johnson that she should download and save a copy of each newly filed
document in this action for her records and future reference, as CM/ECF may impose a fee for a
litigant to access a document a second time.
4

Verified Pet. to Appoint Arbitrator – ECF No. 67.

28
ORDER – No. 18-cv-01409-LB

2

1

arbitrator, but what she needs is an agreement to arbitrate with the defendants in order to compel

2

them to arbitrate.

3
4

CONCLUSION

5

The court denies Ms. Hall-Johnson‟s motions. This disposes of ECF Nos. 55, 58, and 67.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated: August 21, 2018
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER – No. 18-cv-01409-LB

3