1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JAVIER BAHAMONDE, et al., Case No. 25-cv-03499-JSC
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 9 v. TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
10 AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 35, 36, 39 Defendants. 11
12 13 Plaintiffs sue Amplio Logistics, LLC (“Amplio”) and Amazon.com Services, LLC 14 (“Amazon”) in a putative class action for violations of California labor laws. (Dkt. No. 28.)1 The 15 Court previously compelled arbitration as to all but one of Plaintiffs’ causes of action. (Dkt. No. 16 24.) Defendants now ask the Court to clarify its Order compelled arbitration of Plaintiffs’ 17 individual claims, and not also their class claims. (Dkt. No. 39.) Amazon also moves to stay or, 18 in the alternative, dismiss and strike Plaintiffs’ non-arbitrable claim and class claims, and Amplio 19 joins Amazon’s motion. (Dkt. Nos. 35, 36.) Having carefully considered the parties’ 20 submissions, the Court concludes oral argument is not required, VACATES the December 4, 2025 21 hearing, GRANTS Defendants’ motions, and STAYS the case pending arbitration of Plaintiffs’ 22 individual claims. Plaintiffs may not pursue their class claims before an arbitrator absent 23 Defendants’ agreement. And, pursuant to California Civil Procedure Code Section 1281.4, the 24 Court must stay Plaintiffs’ non-arbitrable claim because the issue of whether Amazon employed 25 Plaintiffs is involved in both the proceeding before the arbitrator and before this Court. 26 \\ 27 1 BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiffs sued Defendants in state court for violations of California’s Labor Code and 3 Unfair Competition Law, and Defendants removed the case pursuant to the Class Action Fairness 4 Act. (Dkt. No. 1-5; Dkt. No. 1.) After removal, Amplio moved to compel individual arbitration 5 of Plaintiffs’ claims, and Amazon joined the motion. (Dkt. Nos. 15, 16.) The Court compelled 6 arbitration as to all of Plaintiffs’ causes of action except their ninth cause of action for unpaid 7 vacation upon termination under California Labor Code § 227.3. (Dkt. No. 24 at 10, 19.) The 8 Court also invalidated the arbitration agreement’s class action waiver. (Id. at 16-19.) Although 9 the Court stayed “litigation of claims compelled to arbitration during the pendency of arbitration 10 of those claims,” it noted the parties had not “address[ed] how to proceed” as to the non-arbitrable 11 claim. (Id. at 19.) 12 Plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint on behalf of named Plaintiffs Javier 13 Bahamonde and Dajane Sanders, who worked for Defendants between 2022 and 2023, as well as 14 all others similarly situated. (Dkt. No. 28.) Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint states causes of 15 action for violations of the California Labor Code, including California Labor Code § 227.3, and 16 California’s Unfair Competition Law. (Id. ¶¶ 35-105.) 17 Because the parties disagreed about whether the Court’s order compelling arbitration 18 permitted Plaintiffs to pursue class claims in in arbitration, or whether putative class claims are 19 stayed in this Court pending arbitration of Plaintiffs’ individual claims, the Court granted the 20 parties’ stipulation for further briefing. (Dkt. No. 34.) Defendants asked the Court to clarify its 21 “order compelling arbitration requires Plaintiffs’ claims be arbitrated on an individual basis 22 because class arbitration is not permitted for any claim brought in this matter.” (Dkt. No. 39 at 2.) 23 Amazon also moved to stay the case, or, in the alternative, dismiss and strike Plaintiffs’ non- 24 arbitrable and class claims, and Amplio joined the motion. (Dkt. Nos. 35, 36.) Plaintiffs notified 25 the Court they “d[id] not oppose the primary relief sought by Defendants in both pending Motions 26 . . . (i.e. that all claims, including class claims, will be stayed in this Court pending the resolution 27 of Plaintiffs’ individual claims in arbitration.).” (Dkt. No. 45 at 3.) So, the parties stipulated to an 1 subsequently withdrew their agreement to the stipulation because, Plaintiffs explain, “Defendants 2 reversed course” by calling into question whether “Plaintiffs [could] [] maintain their class claims” 3 following arbitration of their individual claims. (Dkt. No. 47 at 4.) Instead, “Plaintiffs submit that 4 the Court should direct all claims to proceed in Court as a proposed class action in light of the 5 invalidity of the class action waiver.” (Id. at 5.) 6 DISCUSSION 7 I. ARBITRATION OF CLASS CLAIMS 8 Defendants ask the Court to clarify “Plaintiffs’ class claims cannot be compelled to 9 arbitration.” (Dkt. No. 39 at 3.) Plaintiffs ultimately do not oppose Defendants’ position on the 10 arbitrability of their class claims. (Dkt. No. 45 at 3.) The Court agrees its Order compelling 11 arbitration of Plaintiffs’ individual claims, except for the Section 227.3 claim, and invalidating the 12 class action waiver did not compel the parties to pursue class claims in arbitration. 13 Arbitrators “derive their powers from the parties’ agreements related to arbitration, the 14 selected rules of arbitration, and the CAA.” Cooper v. Lavely & Singer Pro. Corp., 230 Cal. App. 15 4th 1, 16 (2014); see also Daniels v. Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., 212 Cal. App. 4th 674, 680 16 (2013) (“[A] party cannot be compelled to arbitrate a dispute that he or she has not agreed to 17 resolve by arbitration.”). “[J]ust as whether class arbitration is available depends on whether the 18 parties agreed to allow or forbid it . . . , so the question who has the power to decide the 19 availability of class arbitration turns upon what the parties agreed about the allocation of that 20 power.” Sandquist v. Lebo Auto., Inc., 1 Cal. 5th 233, 243 (2016) (citation omitted; emphasis in 21 original). “[A]n arbitration agreement . . . is construed like other contracts to give effect to the 22 intention of the parties. . . . If contractual language is clear and explicit, it governs.” Aanderud v. 23 Superior Ct., 13 Cal. App. 5th 880, 890 (2017) (cleaned up). 24 Under the parties’ arbitration agreement, “a court of law must resolve any dispute 25 concerning the validity and enforceability of this Agreement, and the validity, enforceability or 26 interpretation of the provisions pertaining to class, collective, and representative action waivers,” 27 so this Court must decide whether the agreement compels arbitration of class claims. (Dkt. No. 1 actions is found to be unenforceable in whole or in part, then the representative action will be 2 heard in court, not arbitration.” (Id.) The agreement also states, “[n]o arbitrator selected to 3 arbitrate any claim covered by this Agreement is authorized to arbitrate any claim on a class . . . 4 basis,” and “under no circumstance will a claim be allowed to proceed in arbitration as a class 5 action.” (Id. at 3-4.) So, the contractual language clearly and explicitly does not include an 6 agreement to arbitrate class claims, even if—as occurred here—a court deems the class action 7 waiver unenforceable. And, although Plaintiffs state their willingness to arbitrate their class 8 claims, they do not contend Defendants ever agreed to do so, either in the arbitration agreement or 9 afterward. (Dkt. No. 47 at 5.) 10 So, as there is no agreement to arbitrate the class claims, Plaintiffs’ class claims remain in 11 this Court while the individual claims proceed in arbitration. 12 II. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY 13 Under California law, a court “shall, upon motion of a party,” stay proceedings on non- 14 arbitrable claims when “an issue involved” in such claims is also involved in claims ordered to 15 arbitration. See Cal. Civ. P. Code § 1281.4. “The purpose of the statutory stay . . . is to protect the 16 jurisdiction of the arbitrator by preserving the status quo until arbitration is resolved.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JAVIER BAHAMONDE, et al., Case No. 25-cv-03499-JSC
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 9 v. TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
10 AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 35, 36, 39 Defendants. 11
12 13 Plaintiffs sue Amplio Logistics, LLC (“Amplio”) and Amazon.com Services, LLC 14 (“Amazon”) in a putative class action for violations of California labor laws. (Dkt. No. 28.)1 The 15 Court previously compelled arbitration as to all but one of Plaintiffs’ causes of action. (Dkt. No. 16 24.) Defendants now ask the Court to clarify its Order compelled arbitration of Plaintiffs’ 17 individual claims, and not also their class claims. (Dkt. No. 39.) Amazon also moves to stay or, 18 in the alternative, dismiss and strike Plaintiffs’ non-arbitrable claim and class claims, and Amplio 19 joins Amazon’s motion. (Dkt. Nos. 35, 36.) Having carefully considered the parties’ 20 submissions, the Court concludes oral argument is not required, VACATES the December 4, 2025 21 hearing, GRANTS Defendants’ motions, and STAYS the case pending arbitration of Plaintiffs’ 22 individual claims. Plaintiffs may not pursue their class claims before an arbitrator absent 23 Defendants’ agreement. And, pursuant to California Civil Procedure Code Section 1281.4, the 24 Court must stay Plaintiffs’ non-arbitrable claim because the issue of whether Amazon employed 25 Plaintiffs is involved in both the proceeding before the arbitrator and before this Court. 26 \\ 27 1 BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiffs sued Defendants in state court for violations of California’s Labor Code and 3 Unfair Competition Law, and Defendants removed the case pursuant to the Class Action Fairness 4 Act. (Dkt. No. 1-5; Dkt. No. 1.) After removal, Amplio moved to compel individual arbitration 5 of Plaintiffs’ claims, and Amazon joined the motion. (Dkt. Nos. 15, 16.) The Court compelled 6 arbitration as to all of Plaintiffs’ causes of action except their ninth cause of action for unpaid 7 vacation upon termination under California Labor Code § 227.3. (Dkt. No. 24 at 10, 19.) The 8 Court also invalidated the arbitration agreement’s class action waiver. (Id. at 16-19.) Although 9 the Court stayed “litigation of claims compelled to arbitration during the pendency of arbitration 10 of those claims,” it noted the parties had not “address[ed] how to proceed” as to the non-arbitrable 11 claim. (Id. at 19.) 12 Plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint on behalf of named Plaintiffs Javier 13 Bahamonde and Dajane Sanders, who worked for Defendants between 2022 and 2023, as well as 14 all others similarly situated. (Dkt. No. 28.) Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint states causes of 15 action for violations of the California Labor Code, including California Labor Code § 227.3, and 16 California’s Unfair Competition Law. (Id. ¶¶ 35-105.) 17 Because the parties disagreed about whether the Court’s order compelling arbitration 18 permitted Plaintiffs to pursue class claims in in arbitration, or whether putative class claims are 19 stayed in this Court pending arbitration of Plaintiffs’ individual claims, the Court granted the 20 parties’ stipulation for further briefing. (Dkt. No. 34.) Defendants asked the Court to clarify its 21 “order compelling arbitration requires Plaintiffs’ claims be arbitrated on an individual basis 22 because class arbitration is not permitted for any claim brought in this matter.” (Dkt. No. 39 at 2.) 23 Amazon also moved to stay the case, or, in the alternative, dismiss and strike Plaintiffs’ non- 24 arbitrable and class claims, and Amplio joined the motion. (Dkt. Nos. 35, 36.) Plaintiffs notified 25 the Court they “d[id] not oppose the primary relief sought by Defendants in both pending Motions 26 . . . (i.e. that all claims, including class claims, will be stayed in this Court pending the resolution 27 of Plaintiffs’ individual claims in arbitration.).” (Dkt. No. 45 at 3.) So, the parties stipulated to an 1 subsequently withdrew their agreement to the stipulation because, Plaintiffs explain, “Defendants 2 reversed course” by calling into question whether “Plaintiffs [could] [] maintain their class claims” 3 following arbitration of their individual claims. (Dkt. No. 47 at 4.) Instead, “Plaintiffs submit that 4 the Court should direct all claims to proceed in Court as a proposed class action in light of the 5 invalidity of the class action waiver.” (Id. at 5.) 6 DISCUSSION 7 I. ARBITRATION OF CLASS CLAIMS 8 Defendants ask the Court to clarify “Plaintiffs’ class claims cannot be compelled to 9 arbitration.” (Dkt. No. 39 at 3.) Plaintiffs ultimately do not oppose Defendants’ position on the 10 arbitrability of their class claims. (Dkt. No. 45 at 3.) The Court agrees its Order compelling 11 arbitration of Plaintiffs’ individual claims, except for the Section 227.3 claim, and invalidating the 12 class action waiver did not compel the parties to pursue class claims in arbitration. 13 Arbitrators “derive their powers from the parties’ agreements related to arbitration, the 14 selected rules of arbitration, and the CAA.” Cooper v. Lavely & Singer Pro. Corp., 230 Cal. App. 15 4th 1, 16 (2014); see also Daniels v. Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., 212 Cal. App. 4th 674, 680 16 (2013) (“[A] party cannot be compelled to arbitrate a dispute that he or she has not agreed to 17 resolve by arbitration.”). “[J]ust as whether class arbitration is available depends on whether the 18 parties agreed to allow or forbid it . . . , so the question who has the power to decide the 19 availability of class arbitration turns upon what the parties agreed about the allocation of that 20 power.” Sandquist v. Lebo Auto., Inc., 1 Cal. 5th 233, 243 (2016) (citation omitted; emphasis in 21 original). “[A]n arbitration agreement . . . is construed like other contracts to give effect to the 22 intention of the parties. . . . If contractual language is clear and explicit, it governs.” Aanderud v. 23 Superior Ct., 13 Cal. App. 5th 880, 890 (2017) (cleaned up). 24 Under the parties’ arbitration agreement, “a court of law must resolve any dispute 25 concerning the validity and enforceability of this Agreement, and the validity, enforceability or 26 interpretation of the provisions pertaining to class, collective, and representative action waivers,” 27 so this Court must decide whether the agreement compels arbitration of class claims. (Dkt. No. 1 actions is found to be unenforceable in whole or in part, then the representative action will be 2 heard in court, not arbitration.” (Id.) The agreement also states, “[n]o arbitrator selected to 3 arbitrate any claim covered by this Agreement is authorized to arbitrate any claim on a class . . . 4 basis,” and “under no circumstance will a claim be allowed to proceed in arbitration as a class 5 action.” (Id. at 3-4.) So, the contractual language clearly and explicitly does not include an 6 agreement to arbitrate class claims, even if—as occurred here—a court deems the class action 7 waiver unenforceable. And, although Plaintiffs state their willingness to arbitrate their class 8 claims, they do not contend Defendants ever agreed to do so, either in the arbitration agreement or 9 afterward. (Dkt. No. 47 at 5.) 10 So, as there is no agreement to arbitrate the class claims, Plaintiffs’ class claims remain in 11 this Court while the individual claims proceed in arbitration. 12 II. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY 13 Under California law, a court “shall, upon motion of a party,” stay proceedings on non- 14 arbitrable claims when “an issue involved” in such claims is also involved in claims ordered to 15 arbitration. See Cal. Civ. P. Code § 1281.4. “The purpose of the statutory stay . . . is to protect the 16 jurisdiction of the arbitrator by preserving the status quo until arbitration is resolved. In the 17 absence of a stay, the continuation of the proceedings in the trial court disrupts the arbitration 18 proceedings and can render them ineffective.” MKJA, Inc. v. 123 Fit Franchising, LLC, 191 Cal. 19 App. 4th 643, 658 (2011) (cleaned up). “Under section 1281.4, a party to a judicial proceeding is 20 entitled to a stay of those proceedings whenever (1) the arbitration of a controversy has been 21 ordered, and (2) that controversy is also an issue involved in the pending judicial action.” Cardiff 22 Equities, Inc. v. Superior Ct., 166 Cal. App. 4th 1541, 1551 (2008) (quotation marks and citation 23 omitted). “A controversy can be a single question of law or fact.” Heritage Provider Network, 24 Inc. v. Superior Ct., 158 Cal. App. 4th 1146, 1152-53 (2008) (“The trial court’s belief one 25 overlapping issue was insufficient to justify imposition of a stay was incorrect.”). 26 Defendants move to stay all proceedings in this Court pending arbitration of Plaintiffs’ 27 individual claims. (Dkt. Nos. 35, 36.) To succeed on both their non-arbitrable California Labor 1 Defendants employed them. See Lesnik v. Eisenmann SE, 374 F. Supp. 3d 923, 947 (N.D. Cal. 2 |} 2019) (“To be liable for violations of the California Labor Code, a defendant must be the 3 || plaintiff's employer.” (citing Martinez v. Combs, 49 Cal. 4th 35, 49 (2010)). Amazon disputes it 4 || employed Plaintiffs, so this is a controversy involved in both the arbitration and Court 5 proceedings. Defendants are therefore entitled to a stay of the Court proceedings pursuant to 6 California Civil Procedure Code § 1281.4. 7 Plaintiffs do not oppose the stay of “all claims, including class claims, . . . pending the 8 || resolution of Plaintiffs’ individual claims in arbitration.” (Dkt. No. 45 at 3.) However, in light of 9 || Amazon’s argument the arbitration proceeding might resolve the class claims, Plaintiffs ask the 10 Court to “direct all claims to proceed in Court as a proposed class action in light of the invalidity 11 of the class action waiver.” (/d. at 5.) Because the Court must stay all proceedings pending 12 arbitration, it will not direct the class action to continue at this time; instead, the class claims, as 13 well as the California Labor Code § 227.3 claim, are stayed. CONCLUSION 3 15 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to stay the case a 16 || pending arbitration of Plaintiffs’ individual claims, except the California Labor Code § 227.3 3 17 || claim, and GRANTS Defendants’ motion to clarify the Court did not compel the class claims to 18 arbitration; instead, those claims, too, are stayed. On or before June 1, 2026, the parties shall 19 || jointly provide a written update on the status of the arbitration. 20 This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 35, 36, 39, 46, 48, 49. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: December 1, 2025
24 ne JAGQUELINE SCOTT CORL 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28