Carrera Chapple v. Ancestry.com Operations Inc.

S.D. California

Carrera Chapple v. Ancestry.com Operations Inc.

DecidedSeptember 30, 2020

Docket3:20-cv-01456

StatusUnknown

This text of Carrera Chapple v. Ancestry.com Operations Inc. (Carrera Chapple v. Ancestry.com Operations Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carrera Chapple v. Ancestry.com Operations Inc., (S.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARTA CARRERA CHAPPLE Case No.: 20cv1456-LAB (DEB)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 13 v. UNOPPOSED MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; AND 14 ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS

INC., et al. 15 ORDER OF DISMISSAL Defendants. 16

17 18 Defendant Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. moved to compel arbitration 19 pursuant to Plaintiff Marta Carrera Chapple’s arbitration agreement, which it 20 argued covered all her claims. Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition to the 21 motion, but asked the Court to stay the action rather than dismiss it. This case was 22 filed as a putative class action. 23 The Ninth Circuit has directed district courts, when granting motions to 24 compel arbitration, to be as clear as possible whether a dismissal or stay is 25 intended. See Bushley v. Credit Suisse First Boston, 360 F.3d 1149, 1153 n.1 (9th 26 Cir. 2004). 27 Defendant has argued that the class action waiver is enforceable, and 28 Plaintiff does not dispute this. This case therefore cannot be maintained as a class 1 ||action. Where, as here, all claims are subject to an arbitration agreement, the Court 2 ||may dismiss the action. See Pleasant v. Dollar Gen’! Corp., 2015 WL 12811236, 3 *3 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 18, 2015) (citing Sparling v. Hoffman Const. Co., Inc., 864 4 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988) and Thinket Ink Info. Res., Inc. v. Sun Microsystems, 5 || 368 F.3d 1053, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004)). 6 The unopposed motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims 7 ||are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and the putative class claims are DISMISSED 8 || WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This action is DISMISSED and the Clerk is directed to 9 || close the docket. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ||Dated: September 30, 2020 13 / oat 4 14 Honorable Larry Alan Burns 45 Chief United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARTA CARRERA CHAPPLE Case No.: 20cv1456-LAB (DEB)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 13 v. UNOPPOSED MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; AND 14 ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS

INC., et al. 15 ORDER OF DISMISSAL Defendants. 16

17 18 Defendant Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. moved to compel arbitration 19 pursuant to Plaintiff Marta Carrera Chapple’s arbitration agreement, which it 20 argued covered all her claims. Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition to the 21 motion, but asked the Court to stay the action rather than dismiss it. This case was 22 filed as a putative class action. 23 The Ninth Circuit has directed district courts, when granting motions to 24 compel arbitration, to be as clear as possible whether a dismissal or stay is 25 intended. See Bushley v. Credit Suisse First Boston, 360 F.3d 1149, 1153 n.1 (9th 26 Cir. 2004). 27 Defendant has argued that the class action waiver is enforceable, and 28 Plaintiff does not dispute this. This case therefore cannot be maintained as a class 1 ||action. Where, as here, all claims are subject to an arbitration agreement, the Court 2 ||may dismiss the action. See Pleasant v. Dollar Gen’! Corp., 2015 WL 12811236, 3 *3 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 18, 2015) (citing Sparling v. Hoffman Const. Co., Inc., 864 4 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988) and Thinket Ink Info. Res., Inc. v. Sun Microsystems, 5 || 368 F.3d 1053, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004)). 6 The unopposed motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims 7 ||are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and the putative class claims are DISMISSED 8 || WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This action is DISMISSED and the Clerk is directed to 9 || close the docket. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ||Dated: September 30, 2020 13 / oat 4 14 Honorable Larry Alan Burns 45 Chief United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Carrera Chapple v. Ancestry.com Operations Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carrera-chapple-v-ancestrycom-operations-inc-casd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack