Farfan et al v. SSC Carmichael Operating Company LP et al

Filing 53

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 51 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR CLARIFICATION.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

NAOMI FARFAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9
10
11

SSC CARMICHAEL OPERATING
COMPANY LP, et al.,

Case No. 18-cv-01472-HSG
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OR
CLARIFICATION
Re: Dkt. No. 51

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

I.

BACKGROUND
On February 1, 2019, the Court granted Defendants’ motions to compel arbitration of the

14
15

claims of Plaintiffs Terri Richter, Naomi Farfan, and Lollie Webster. Dkt. No. 50. The Court

16

compelled arbitration of “Plaintiffs’ non-PAGA claims.” Id. at 10. On February 12, 2019,

17

Plaintiffs filed the currently-pending motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, and in

18

the alternative requested clarification regarding the February 1 order. Dkt. No. 51.

19
20

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Under Civil Local Rule 7-9, “[b]efore the entry of a judgment adjudicating all of the claims

21

and the rights and liabilities of all the parties in a case, any party may make a motion before a

22

Judge requesting that the Judge grant the party leave to file a motion for reconsideration of any

23

interlocutory order on any ground set forth in Civil L.R. 7-9 (b).” Civil L.R. 7-9(a). The Local

24

Rule further directs that:

25
26
27
28

[t]he moving party must specifically show reasonable diligence in
bringing the motion, and one of the following:
(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in
fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before
entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought.
The party also must show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence
the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law

at the time of the interlocutory order; or
(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring
after the time of such order; or
(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or
dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before
such interlocutory order.

1
2
3
4

Civil L.R. 7-9(b).

5

III.

DISCUSSION

6

A.

7

Plaintiffs contend that a “material difference in fact or law exists from [that] which was

Motion for Leave

8

presented to the Court” prior to its February 1 order, due to an order issued in the Western District

9

of Texas on January 4, 2019. Dkt. No. 51 at 1.
Plaintiffs have not identified a material difference in fact or law by bringing the Texas

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

court’s order to the Court’s attention. The Texas decision relied on the same facts presented to this

12

Court, and is not binding on this Court. Moreover, Plaintiffs never brought the Texas court’s

13

order to this Court’s attention before the February 1 ruling, even though they clearly could have.

14

The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.

15

B.

16

Plaintiffs request, in the alternative, that the Court clarify its order “as to whether the Court

Motion for Clarification

17

has compelled only Plaintiffs' individual claims to arbitration or also has compelled the class

18

claims to arbitration.” Id. at 4. Defendants contend that “[p]er the Court’s order, Plaintiffs’ non-

19

PAGA claims are compelled to arbitration on an individual basis, while their PAGA claims are

20

stayed pending resolution of the individual arbitrations.” Dkt. No. 52 at 5. Plaintiffs contend that

21

the Court’s order compelled all of Plaintiffs’ non-PAGA claims, including Plaintiffs’ putative

22

class claims, to arbitration. Dkt. No. 51 at 4.
Plaintiffs are correct. The Court, in finding that the EDR Booklets are ambiguous as to

23
24

whether putative class action claims must be arbitrated, resolved the ambiguity in favor of

25

arbitration of those claims, and therefore submitted any future litigation with respect to those

26

claims, including any dispute as to whether class claims are precluded, to the arbitrator in the first

27

instance. Dkt. No. 50 at 9.

28

//
2

1

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion

2
3

for reconsideration, and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for clarification of the Court’s February 1

4

order.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 2/19/2019
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District 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
3