Harper v. Charter Communications, LLC

Opinion

----oo0oo---- LIONEL HARPER, DANIEL SINCLAIR, No. 2:19-cv-00902 WBS DMC HASSAN TURNER, LUIS VAZQUEZ, and PEDRO ABASCAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and all ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF DANIEL aggrieved employees, SINCLAIR’S MOTION TO LIFT THE Plaintiffs, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant.

----oo0oo---- Plaintiffs Lionel Harper, Daniel Sinclair, Hassan Turner, Luis Vazquez, and Pedro Abascal (“plaintiffs”) brought this putative class action against their former employer, Charter Communications, alleging various violations of the California Labor Code. On October 13, 2021, the court granted Charter’s motions to compel arbitration of plaintiff Turner, Vazquez, and Abascal’s claims, and to compel arbitration of plaintiff Harper’s claims save for his PAGA claim. (See Docket No. 202.) In that order, the court also issued a temporary stay of plaintiff Sinclair’s claims pending arbitration of the other plaintiffs’ claims. (See id.) In the instant motion, Sinclair argues that, because in its order the court resolved issues regarding arbitrability of the other plaintiffs’ claims itself rather than delegating them to an arbitrator, there no longer exists a reason to delay consideration of his claims or a motion for class certification. (See Mot. at 6 (Docket No. 211).) He states that during oral argument on October 4, 2021, his counsel only expressed desire for a stay for long enough for Sinclair to determine whether to proceed without the other plaintiffs as proposed class representatives and that, because those plaintiffs are arbitrating their claims, he seeks to proceed with the action and present a renewed motion for class certification. (See id.) He also notes that, because he did not sign an arbitration agreement, unlike the other plaintiffs, section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act does not provide alternative grounds to stay his claims pending arbitration of the other plaintiffs’ claims. (See id. at 8-9.) As part of its inherent power to control its docket, the court may stay an action at its discretion, based upon the circumstances of the case before it. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433-34 (2009); Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254- 55 (1936). By the same token, “[t]he same court that imposes a stay of litigation has the inherent power and discretion to lift the stay.” CE Res., Inc. v. Elite Cont’g Educ., Inc., 2:15-cv- 01908 WBS AC, 2016 WL 3653446, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 6, 2016) (quoting Digit. Software Servs., Inc. v. Ent. Programs, Inc., 2:09-cv-02763 TLN DAD, 2014 WL 5816929, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2014)). “The court may lift the stay ‘[w]hen circumstances have changed such that the court’s reasons for imposing the stay no longer exist or are inappropriate.’” Id. (alteration in original). In general, district courts have “broad discretion” to control their dockets through use of stays. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 683 (1997). The court stayed plaintiff Sinclair’s claims at his counsel’s request. (See Docket No. 202 at 24.) Sinclair’s subsequent request that the court lift the stay thus represents a change of “circumstances . . . such that the court’s reasons for imposing the stay no longer exist,” CE Res., Inc., 2014 WL 3653446, at *1, contrary to Charter’s contentions, (see Opp. to Mot. at 8 (Docket No. 215)). For this reason, and because, “when feasible, it is preferable to proceed with litigation of . . . nonarbitrable claims,” JNK Ent. v. SP Sales & Ent., 15-cv-01908 RGK (FFMx), 2015 WL 13283845, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2015) (citation omitted), the court will grant Sinclair’s motion to lift the stay. It is therefore HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Sinclair’s motion to lift the stay of his claims be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. The parties are hereby directed to stipulate to a briefing schedule and hearing date for Sinclair’s renewed motion for class certification. /// nen nee en ene nn nn OIE I ESE IEE II I EEO

bet¢ □ ak. 1d Dated: November 30, 2021 WILLIAMB.SHUBB . . .}.}.}.}© UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE