Hector Rodriguez v. Activision Blizzard Inc.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: March 11, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01287
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 || Brianna K. Pierce (CA Bar No. 336906) DYNAMIS LLP 2 || 100 Bayview Circle Newport Beach, CA 92660 3 || Tel: (617) 802-9157 Email: bpierce@dynamisllp.com 4 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 WESTERN DIVISION 9 HECTOR RODRIGUEZ, CASE NO. 2:24-CV-01287-PA-MAA 10 || SETH ABNER, and HECZ, LLC, 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION v. TO ARBITRATE AND TO DISMISS 12 THIS ACTION. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 On March 1, 2024, the Parties filed a stipulation to stay this action [ECF No. 10]. Defendan 17 asserts that Plaintiffs’ claims are subject to binding arbitration before the International Court o: 18 || Arbitration. Plaintiffs dispute that their claims are subject to arbitration but have agreed, to spare the 19 || expense of costly and lengthy litigation on jurisdictional issues of formation, enforceability, validity 20 || and/or arbitrability as to the relevant arbitration provisions, to submit those jurisdictional issues for 21 || determination by the Arbitral Tribunals in the Rodriguez Arbitration (with respect to the claim: 22 || asserted by Hector Rodriguez and HECZ, LLC) and the Abner Arbitration (with respect to the claim: 23 || asserted by Seth Abner). 24 The Court, having considered the Parties’ Stipulation and finding good cause therefor, hereby 25 || GRANTS the Stipulation and ORDERS as follows: 26 27 28

1 1. Counsel for Defendant is deemed to have accepted service of the Complaint on □□□□□□ 2 || of Defendant. The service is deemed effective upon entry of this Order. Defendant has reserved al 3 || rights, defenses, or other objections other than insufficient process or insufficient service of process 4 2. The Arbitral Tribunals shall decide by final and binding arbitration all questions o1 5 || formation, enforceability, and validity of the relevant arbitration provisions and all questions 6 || concerning the arbitrability of Plaintiffs’ claims in this action. 7 3. Plaintiffs have expressly reserved all rights, defenses, objections, and arguments as 8 || to the questions of formation, enforceability, and/or validity of the relevant arbitration provisions 9 || and/or the questions arbitrability of Plaintiffs’ claims and—without any prejudice to or waiver of 10 || those rights, defenses, objections, and arguments—agreed to delegate those issues for final anc 11 || binding decision by the Arbitral Tribunals. Defendant expressly reserved all rights, claims, and 12. || remedies in connection with its contention that Plaintiffs filed this action in breach of the arbitratior 13 || and confidentiality provisions of the relevant agreements. 14 4. Because Plaintiffs’ claims are subject to arbitration, this action is dismissed. See 15 || Brennan v. Opus Bank, 796 F.3d 1125, 1134 (9th Cir. 2015) (affirming district court’s order 16 || dismissing action in favor of arbitration); Thinket Ink Info. Res., Inc. v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 17 || 368 F.3d 1053, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that district court did not err in dismissing claims 18 || subject to arbitration and noting that FAA allows but does not require a stay of court proceedings); 19 || Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming trial court’s 20 || dismissal of claims referred to arbitration); Martin Marietta Aluminum, Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 586 21 || F.2d 143, 147 (9th Cir. 1978). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. a —™ 23 || Dated: March 11, 2024 Ty Kez. PER.CY ANDERSON 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 -2-