Sprint Solutions, Inc. et al v. Snyder et al

Filing 100

ORDER DENYING 26 DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS. Joint Case Management Statement due 11/2/2017. Case Management Conference set for 11/9/2017 at 10:00 AM. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 9/27/2017. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/27/2017) Modified text on 9/27/2017 (amkS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,

Case No. 5:15-cv-02439-EJD

Plaintiffs,
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS

13
v.
14
15

THIRTY-ONE ECHO, INC., et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 26

Defendants.
16
17
18

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter

19

jurisdiction because Defendants “expressly agreed to resolution of any ‘dispute’ through

20

individual binding arbitration or small claims court.” Dkt. No. 26. at 5–6.

21

In their opposition brief, Plaintiffs note that the arbitration agreement “contains an express

22

exception for injunctive relief.” Dkt. No. 34 at 4. However, Plaintiffs indicated that they “do[] not

23

oppose staying the remaining issues and claims in this action and shifting them to arbitration.” Id.

24

This Court issued an order requesting supplemental briefing on whether the Court should

25

enter “an order compelling the parties to participate in the contractual dispute resolution process as

26

to certain claims, and staying those claims during that process.” Dkt. No. 65 at 1. Plaintiffs agreed

27

with the Court’s proposal. Dkt. No. 64 at 2. Defendants acknowledged that the arbitration

28

Case No.: 5:15-cv-02439-EJD
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
1

1

provision applies to Plaintiffs’ claims, but they appear to argue that the provision covers all of

2

Plaintiffs’ claims, including those that seek injunctive relief—and, as such, Defendants ask the

3

Court to dismiss the case entirely for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 66 at 2.

4

The Court finds that subject-matter jurisdiction exists because a federal question is

5

presented on the face of the complaint. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).

6

The Court also finds that the parties’ briefing is ambiguous as to which of Plaintiffs’ claims are

7

within the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement. Accordingly, the Court orders as follows:

8

1.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 26)

is DENIED. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, Defendants’ motion for

10

more definite statement, and Defendants’ motion to strike (Dkt. No. 26) are DENIED without

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

prejudice.

12

2.

13

A case management conference is set for Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 10:00

a.m. The parties shall file a joint case management statement by November 2, 2017.

14

3.

Defendants’ motion to stay discovery (Dkt. No. 47) is DENIED without prejudice.

15

4.

Plaintiffs’ motion for a case management conference (Dkt. No. 58) and

16

Defendants’ motion to strike that motion (Dkt. No. 61) are DENIED as moot.

17
18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 27, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No.: 5:15-cv-02439-EJD
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
2