Tajonar v. Echosphere, L.L.C. et al

Filing 56

ORDER granting 45 Motion for Reconsideration. This case is STAYED while the arbitrator decides on the availability of arbitration of Tajonar's class and representative claims. The arbitrator shall make this decision by September 26, 2016. Tajonar shall notify the Court within 14 calendar days after the arbitrator makes that decision. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 6/27/16. (kas)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSE TAJONAR,

12

CASE NO. 14cv2732-LAB (RBB)
Plaintiff,

ORDER ON MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

vs.
13

ECHOSPHERE LLC, et al. ,

14

Defendants.

15
16
17

This is an employment case brought by Jose Tajonar against Dish Network California

18

Service Corporation, Dish Network Corporation, Dish Network Service L.L.C., and

19

Echosphere L.L.C. (Collectively “Dish”). Dish moved to compel arbitration and dismiss

20

Tajonar’s class and representative claims. (Docket no. 3.) The Court initially granted Dish’s

21

motion. (Docket no. 33.) Then it requested briefing on Tajonar’s motion for reconsideration.

22

(Docket no. 35.)

23

Tajonar agrees that his individual claims should be arbitrated. (Docket no. 45 at 2.)

24

He contends, however, that his class and representative claims shouldn’t be dismissed. (Id.)

25

Instead, he contends, the arbitrator should decide whether his class and representative

26

claims are arbitrable, not the Court. (Id.)

27

///

28

///
-1-

14-cv-2732

1

Arbitration of Class Claims

2

“[T]he availability of class arbitration is a question of arbitrability to be decided by the

3

Court unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise.” (Docket no. 33 at

4

2–3.) The parties’ arbitration agreement refers to the AAA National Rules for the Resolution

5

of Employment Disputes, and the AAA’s Supplementary Rules for Class Arbitration provide

6

that an arbitrator will decide whether the applicable arbitration clause permits the arbitration

7

to proceed against a class. (Docket no. 3, Exhibit 3-E; Docket no. 45, Exhibit 3 at ¶ 3.)

8

Based on this provision in the AAA’s Supplementary Rules, Tajonar maintains that the

9

parties did sufficiently elect to defer to the arbitrator on the availability of class arbitration.

10

(Docket no. 45 at 6.)

11

There’s support for Tajonar’s argument. See, e.g., Accentcare, Inc. v. Jacobs, 2015

12

WL 6847909, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2015). Accentcare pointed out that the AAA’s National

13

Rules provide that the “arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction,

14

including any objections with respect to the existence, scope or validity of the arbitration

15

agreement.” Id. And the AAA’s Supplementary Rules provide that “the arbitrator shall

16

determine as a threshold matter, in a reasoned, partial final award on the construction of the

17

arbitration clause, whether the applicable arbitration clause permits the arbitration to proceed

18

on behalf of or against a class.” Id. Thus, because the arbitration agreement at issue there

19

incorporated the National Rules, the court concluded that there was “a clear and

20

unmistakable agreement to have the arbitrator decide questions regarding the arbitrability

21

of class-wide claims.” Id.; see also Oracle Am., Inc. v. Myriad Grp. AG, 724 F.3d 1069, 1074

22

(9th Cir. 2013) (“Virtually every circuit to have considered the issue has determined that

23

incorporation of the [AAA’s] arbitration rules constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence

24

that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability.”).

25

The Court agrees with the reasoning in Accentcare. Tajonar’s class claims shall be

26

presented to an AAA arbitrator to decide if they should be arbitrated.

27

///

28

///
-2-

14-cv-2732

1

Arbitration of Representative Claims

2

The Court initially held that Tajonar can’t arbitrate his Private Attorneys General Act

3

(“PAGA”) claims on a representative basis. (Docket no. 33 at 3.) After the Court issued its

4

order, however, the Ninth Circuit issued Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail N. Am., Inc., 803 F.3d

5

425 (9th Cir. 2015). There, the Court concluded that “[a]greements waiving the right to bring

6

‘representative’ PAGA claims . . . are unenforceable under California law.” Id. at 431. And

7

it remanded the case for the district court to decide whether the parties had agreed to

8

arbitrate or litigate the representative PAGA claims. Id. at 440. As with the class claims, the

9

Court concludes that Tajonar’s representative PAGA claims shall be presented to an AAA

10

arbitrator to decide if they should be arbitrated.

11

Conclusion

12

Tajonar’s motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. All of Tajonar’s claims shall be

13

presented to an AAA arbitrator to decide if they should be arbitrated. This case is STAYED

14

while the arbitrator decides on the availability of arbitration of Tajonar’s class and

15

representative claims. The arbitrator shall make this decision by September 26, 2016.

16

Tajonar shall notify the Court within 14 calendar days after the arbitrator makes that

17

decision. This case will be dismissed if the arbitrator decides that all of the claims are

18

subject to arbitration, or if Tajonar doesn’t notify the Court of the arbitrator’s arbitrability

19

decision by September 26, 2016. See Sparling v. Hoffman Const. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 638

20

(9th Cir. 1988).

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 27, 2016

23
24

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
-3-

14-cv-2732