Gabriella v. Recology Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: August 10, 2022
• Docket: 4:21-cv-08460
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TABAK GABRIELLA, Case No. 21-cv-08460-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ON MOTION TO COMPEL 9 v. ARBITRATION

10 RECOLOGY INC., Re: Dkt. No. 21 11 Defendant.

12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant Recology Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration. See 14 Dkt. No. 21. In her opposition, Plaintiff Gabriella Tabak argues that she never signed an 15 employment agreement with Defendant—her late husband did—so she cannot be bound by the 16 arbitration provision. See Dkt. No. 27 at 1–2, 16–17. In short, the question before the Court is 17 whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties. See Henry Schein, Inc. v. 18 Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524, 530 (2019) (“[B]efore referring a dispute to an 19 arbitrator, the court determines whether a valid arbitration agreement exists.”). However, the 20 parties do not squarely address each other’s arguments. 21 Plaintiff, for her part, appears to acknowledge that at least some of her causes of action 22 were brought “as representative of the Estate of Adam Tabak, deceased.” See Dkt. No. 14 23 (“FAC”) at ¶ 7. But Plaintiff fails to address why she cannot be bound by the arbitration 24 agreement in this capacity, at least as to the survival claims. Defendant, in turn, fails to explain 25 what authority the Court has to bind Plaintiff as a nonsignatory to the arbitration agreement as to 26 her wrongful death claim. Plaintiff is not standing in the shoes of Mr. Tabak for purposes of the 27 wrongful death claim. Moreover, the California statutory provisions that Defendant cites, see Dkt. 1 Defendant may not sidestep this question by arguing that the arbitration agreement contains a 2 || broad delegation provision. See Dkt. No. 28 at 1-2, 6. As noted above, the question is whether 3 the Court can find that Plaintiff is subject to the arbitration agreement at all. 4 The Court finds that the record would benefit from more fulsome briefing. Accordingly, 5 || the parties shall submit simultaneous briefs of no longer than five pages by August 18, 2022, 6 addressing these discrete issues and providing apposite authority. Once the supplemental briefing 7 is complete, the Court will determine whether a hearing on the motion is necessary. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: 8/10/2022 10 Alayyed Sbl □□ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. I United States District Judge 12

© 15 16

= 17

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