Chung v. Intellectsoft Group Corporation

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: August 10, 2023
• Docket: 4:21-cv-03074
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 HOPE CHUNG, et al., Case No. 21-cv-03074-JST

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLANTIFFS’ 9 v. MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING MEDIATION 10 INTELLECTSOFT GROUP CORPORATION, et al., Re: ECF No. 103 11 Defendants.

12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiffs Hope Chung and Picture Mandarin LLC’s motion for an 14 order directing mediation. ECF No. 103. The Court will deny the motion. 15 Plaintiffs’ motion requested that the Court “direct the parties to mediation” because (1) the 16 contracts under which the claims arise contain a “provision requiring the parties to attempt to 17 resolve any disputes by mediation”; and (2) Defendants have refused Plaintiffs’ requests to 18 mediate. ECF No. 103 at 3-4. Because Plaintiffs cited no authority for the request, and because 19 the Court found caselaw suggesting that it lacks the authority to compel the parties to mediate, it 20 ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the Court’s authority to grant Plaintiffs’ 21 motion. ECF No. 118; see Heston v. GB Cap. Holdings, LLC, No. 16-cv-912-WQH-RBB, 2016 22 WL 4468254, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2016) (“The Court concludes that there is no legal 23 authority for an order to compel non-binding mediation.”); Trujillo v. Gomez, No. 14-CV-2483- 24 BTM (BGS), 2015 WL 1757870, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2015) (declining to compel mediation, 25 and noting that the Eleventh Circuit “has held that the mandatory remedies of the FAA may not be 26 invoked to compel mediation” and that “Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1281.2 authorizes motions to 27 compel ‘arbitration.’ No mention is made of mediation.”). 1 134, the Court concludes that it lacks the authority to order the parties to mediate. Plaintiffs argue 2 || that the Court has such a power under the district’s Alternative Dispute Resolute (“ADR”) Local 3 || Rules and request that “the Court order the mediation to be conducted under the Northern District 4 || of California Mediation program.” ECF No. 125 at 2. But no provision of the ADR Local Rules 5 grants such authority. The ADR Local Rules only require that the parties “participate in one non- 6 || binding ADR process offered by the Court (Early Neutral Evaluation, Mediation or a Settlement 7 Conference with a Magistrate Judge).” ADR L.R. 3-2. As Plaintiffs concede, the parties have 8 already participated in Early Neutral Evaluation. ECF No. 121. 9 “Absent authority for compelling mediation in an action brought by Plaintiffs, the Court 10 declines to do so.” Trujillo, 2015 WL 1757870, at *9. The motion is denied. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 |] Dated: August 10, 2023 . Op: ep JON S. TIG 14 nited States District Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28