Young et al v. ByteDance Inc. et al

Filing 168

ORDER Denying Motion to Deny Class Certification. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 8/30/2024. (vclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2024)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REECE YOUNG, et al.,

Case No. 22-cv-01883-VC

Plaintiffs,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DENY CLASS CERTIFICATION

v.
BYTEDANCE INC., et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 142

Defendants.

The motion to deny class certification is denied. In fact, the Court is confused as to why
this motion was filed at all. Although TikTok and ByteDance make an exceedingly strong
argument to exclude from the class anyone who signed an arbitration agreement, they fail to
explain why that should defeat class certification altogether, as opposed to simply reducing the
size of the proposed class from roughly 12,600 people to roughly 4,100 or 4,300 people
(depending on whether it would be appropriate to include people who signed agreements with
Vaco in the class). In this respect, the primary case cited by TikTok and ByteDance—Lawson v.
Grubhub, Inc., 13 F.4th 908, 913 (9th Cir. 2021)—is very different. There, all members of the
class except the named plaintiff and one other person had signed arbitration agreements.
If a class is ultimately certified, the people who signed arbitration agreements will almost
certainly be excluded, but this matter is properly discussed at the hearing on the motion for class
certification. The parties are free to incorporate by reference the briefs they filed in connection
with this motion, rather than repeating the arguments contained in those briefs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2024
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

2