Ma v. Twitter, Inc. et al

Filing 77

ORDER STAYING AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on 03/05/2025. (dms, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2025)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FABIEN HO CHING MA, et al.,
Petitioners,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 23-cv-03301-JST

v.
TWITTER, INC., et al.,

ORDER STAYING AND
ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING
CASE

Respondents.

12
13

On February 7, 2025, the Court stayed this case as to Petitioners Fabien Ho Ching Ma,

14

Ryan Crowley, and Adam Treitler. ECF No. 67 at 20. As to the three remaining Petitioners, Laila

15

Amlani, Melissa Olson, and Jonathan Willis, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer to

16

attempt to reach agreement on how to proceed. Id. at 21. When the Court ruled on Petitioners’

17

motion to compel arbitration, the record indicated that these Petitioners “worked for Twitter in

18

locations where JAMS does not have any providers who meet the requirements of Section 3 of the

19

DRA [Dispute Resolution Agreement].” Id. at 16.

20

The parties’ most recently filed statement indicates that JAMS has providers in Arizona

21

and Wisconsin, where Amlani and Olson, respectively, live. ECF No. 75 at 2–3. However,

22

Petitioners have represented that the JAMS office in Wisconsin lacks enough arbitrators to create

23

the usual strike list for selecting arbitrators, and that Respondent has not responded to their

24

proposal to select one of the available JAMS arbitrators to conduct Olson’s arbitration. Id. at 2.

25

Respondent’s position is that “JAMS would not be able to administer the arbitration” if it “cannot

26

create a rank-and-strike list due to a lack of available licensed arbitrators in a jurisdiction.” Id. at 3

27

n.1. The parties agree that JAMS does not have an office in Idaho, where Willis lives, and the

28

parties have suggested using either an arbitrator from the Idaho Academy of Mediators and

1
2

As Respondent correctly observes, the Court has determined that it lacks authority to

3

compel arbitration under 9 U.S.C. § 4 in a venue that is outside this district. Id. at 3; ECF No. 67

4

at 14–15, 17. Thus, it cannot compel arbitration in the states in which the arbitrations for Amlani,

5

Olson, and Willis should occur under the parties’ DRA.

6

Because JAMS has available arbitrators in Arizona, Amlani is now similarly situated to

7

Ma and Treitler. The Court therefore stays the case as to her so that, if necessary, she “may pursue

8

an order compelling arbitration in the appropriate venue.” ECF No. 67 at 20.

9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Arbitrators or a retired Idaho federal judge. Id. at 2–3.

As to Willis, the Court cannot compel arbitration in Idaho under 9 U.S.C. § 4, and neither

10

party has moved the Court to appoint a substitute arbitrator under 9 U.S.C. § 5 or addressed

11

whether that statute would allow appointment of an arbitrator outside this district. Accordingly,

12

the case is also stayed as to Willis so that he may, if necessary, pursue an order compelling

13

arbitration or appointment of a substitute arbitrator in the appropriate venue.

14

Finally, the Court stays the case as to Olson because she is either similarly situated to

15

Amlani, if the JAMS office in Wisconsin has a sufficient number of arbitrators or the parties

16

otherwise agree to use one of the JAMS arbitrators available there, or to Willis, if JAMS is

17

unavailable due to a lack of available arbitrators.

18

Because the case is now stayed as to all Petitioners so that they can seek relief in an

19

appropriate venue if the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, the Court directs the Clerk to close

20

the file administratively. This order shall not be considered a dismissal or disposition of this

21

action against any party. If further proceedings become necessary, any party may initiate them in

22

the same manner as if this order had not been entered.

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 5, 2025
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

27
28
2