Farr v. Acima Credit, LLC

Opinion

1 4 SIEARA FARR, CASE NO. 20-CV-8619-YGR

5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE 6 vs. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

7 ACIMA CREDIT LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 52 8 Defendant.

9 The Court is in receipt of plaintiff’s administrative motion to extend the deadline for filing 10 her motion for reconsideration of the July 7, 2021 Order granting defendant’s motion to deny class 11 certification. (Dkt. No. 52.) “The extension is requested so that Plaintiff can conduct focused 12 discovery relevant to the motion for reconsideration, i.e., discovery concerning whether Acima 13 itself uses remedies specified in Row 11 of its Arbitration Clause separate and apart from 14 arbitration proceedings.” (Id.) Plaintiff’s request is DENIED, as she has not adequately 15 demonstrated why such discovery is relevant to her proposed interpretation of the Arbitration 16 Clause. 17 Contrary to plaintiff’s reading, the Court did not hold that remedies of Row 11 apply only 18 to maintain the status quo pending arbitration. (Dkt. No. 48 at 10.) Rather, the Court concluded 19 that claims for such remedies need not be arbitrated if a court grants such relief only for the 20 purpose of maintaining the status quo. (Dkt. No. 44 at 9 (“Thus, the Court finds that the ‘Do other 21 options exist?’ provision does not exempt all equitable claims [from arbitration] but ‘was intended 22 to apply only to claims designed to maintain the status quo between the parties.’”) (quoting 23 Comedy Club, Inc. v. Improv W. Assocs., 553 F.3d 1277, 1285 (9th Cir. 2009)).) This construction 24 does not prohibit customers from pursuing self-help remedies, as plaintiff seems to think. Nor can 25 the Court conceive how evidence that Acima uses the remedies of Row 11 apart from arbitration 26 supports an interpretation of the Arbitration Clause that claims for such remedies are generally 27 In other words, whether Acima (or customers) pursues any of the remedies in Row 11 apart from 2 arbitration has no bearing on whether a court is authorized to grant such remedies as a general 3 matter. 4 That said, plaintiff is not precluded from seeking leave to supplement the record after the 5 motion is filed upon a showing of good cause. Accordingly, the motion for an extension of time 6 to file the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 7 So ORDERED. 8 This terminates Docket Number 52. 9 10 Dated: August 9, 2021 Lypene Hagteffleess YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 12

2B

15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28