Forsyth et al v. HP Inc. et al
Filing
159
ORDER GRANTING #158 DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 3/6/2018. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2018)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
SAN JOSE DIVISION
7
8
DONNA J. FORSYTH, et al.,
Case No. 5:16-cv-04775-EJD
Plaintiffs,
9
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
v.
10
11
HP INC., et al.,
Re: Dkt. No. 158
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Defendants.
12
13
14
On February 6, 2018, the Court issued an order denying Defendants’ motion to enjoin the
15
currently pending arbitration between Defendants and fifteen of the currently named Plaintiffs,
16
which was initiated as a single proceeding with the American Arbitration Association in San
17
Francisco. Dkt. No. 152. Defendants now seek leave to move for reconsideration pursuant to
18
Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(3), arguing that the Court failed to consider the “material fact[]” that both
19
sections 13 and 21 of Plaintiffs’ General Waiver and Release Agreements (“Release Agreements”)
20
require arbitration “in or near the city” where each Plaintiff was last employed. Dkt. No. 158.
21
Because the Court’s order only addressed the language in section 13 of the Release
22
Agreements and not section 21, the Court will GRANT Defendants’ request for leave. The Court
23
construes the motion at Dkt. No. 158 as Defendants’ motion for reconsideration and invites
24
responsive briefing as follows:
25
1.
26
March 13, 2018.
27
28
Plaintiffs shall file a responsive brief of no more than 5 pages, double-spaced, by
Case No.: 5:16-cv-04775-EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
1
1
2.
Defendants shall file a reply brief of no more than 3 pages, double-spaced, by
2
March 16, 2018.
3
3.
In their briefing, the parties shall address, among other things, the effect that
4
requiring Plaintiffs to arbitrate “in or near the city” where they were last employed has on whether
5
Plaintiffs can arbitrate collectively and/or otherwise proceed with the currently pending
6
arbitration.
7
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 6, 2018
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge
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
Case No.: 5:16-cv-04775-EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?