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)

Download PDF
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?