1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PATRICIA LOUIS, et al., Case No. 22-cv-02436-JD
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE ARBITRATION v. 9
10 HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL STAFFING, INC., 11 Defendant.
12 13 Defendant Healthsource Global Staffing, Inc., asks for an order compelling the individual 14 claims of named plaintiffs Patricia Louis and Morgan Murray to arbitration pursuant to the parties’ 15 arbitration agreements and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Healthsource filed a motion to 16 compel arbitration on August 15, 2022. Dkt. No. 29. Under Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), plaintiffs’ 17 opposition was due on August 29, 2022. On September 6, 2022, Healthsource filed a notice that 18 plaintiffs had not filed or served a response to the motion. Dkt. No. 30. To date, plaintiffs have 19 not filed a response, or otherwise opposed the arbitration demand. 20 Why this is so is not clear, especially since plaintiffs briefed a motion to remand and have 21 actively engaged with this case in other respects. See Dkt. Nos. 20, 21, 22. The record 22 demonstrates that plaintiffs had notice of the arbitration demand. The parties submitted a joint 23 case management statement on July 14, 2022, stating that “Defendant claims that Plaintiffs signed 24 arbitration agreements as part of their work with HSG and Plaintiffs plan to conduct discovery on 25 the arbitrability of their claims,” and that Healthsource “anticipates filing a Motion to Compel 26 Arbitration intended to be heard on August 25, 2022, on the basis that Plaintiffs entered into a 27 written agreement to arbitrate all claims arising out of their employment with HSG.” See Dkt. No. 1 May 23, 2022, and the parties met and conferred regarding individual arbitration on June 28, 2022, 2 but plaintiffs declined to stipulate to arbitration. Dkt. No. 29 at 2. 3 Plaintiffs’ failure to oppose the demand is enough in itself to compel arbitration. Even so, 4 the Court independently reviewed the arbitration demand, and concludes that the claims are 5 arbitrable. Consequently, the case is ordered to arbitration. 6 DISCUSSION 7 Plaintiffs Louis and Murray signed arbitration agreements with Healthsource in June 2017 8 and November 2018, respectively. Dkt. No. 29 at 5-6; Dkt. No. 29-1 ¶¶ 11, 13. In effect, the 9 named plaintiffs and Healthsource committed to the same arbitration agreement for all parties. 10 The 2017 and 2018 agreements expressly state that they are governed by the FAA. Dkt. No. 29-1, 11 Ex. A ¶ 4, Ex. B ¶ 4. Each agreement provides that “any and all disputes arising out of, in 12 connection with, or relating to your employment agreement with HealthSource, your employment 13 with HealthSource, and any and all previous and future employment relationships with 14 HealthSource, including with respect to the termination of such employment or other and any 15 dispute as to the validity, interpretation, construction, application or enforcement of any provision 16 of the operative employment agreement, shall be submitted to binding arbitration before a neutral 17 arbitrator.” Id. Ex. A ¶ 2, Ex. B ¶ 2. The parties agreed that “class action and representative 18 action procedures shall not be asserted” in any arbitration, and that the parties will not “assert class 19 action or representative action claims against the other in arbitration or otherwise.” Id. The 20 agreements also provide that plaintiffs may revoke their assent within thirty days of signing, but 21 neither plaintiff did so. Id. ¶¶ 11, 13, Ex. A ¶ 7, Ex. B. ¶ 7. 22 The FAA governs here. The FAA applies to contracts “evidencing a transaction involving 23 commerce.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. The Supreme Court has interpreted “involving commerce” “as the 24 functional equivalent of the more familiar term ‘affecting commerce’ -- words of art that 25 ordinarily signal the broadest permissible exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause power.” 26 Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc., 539 U.S. 52, 56 (2003) (per curiam). Healthsource engages in 27 interstate commerce because it recruits nurses from all fifty states, and its employees work in 1 arbitration agreements also expressly state that the FAA governs. Id., Ex. A ¶ 4, Ex. B ¶ 4; see 2 also Williams v. Eaze Sols., Inc., 417 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1238 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (FAA applied 3 where terms of service stated that the FAA governed the interpretation and enforcement of the 4 dispute resolution section). 5 The FAA’s “overarching purpose ... is to ensure the enforcement of arbitration agreements 6 according to their terms so as to facilitate streamlined proceedings.” AT&T Mobility LLC v. 7 Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 344 (2011). Under Section 4 of the FAA, the Court’s role “is limited 8 to determining whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and, if so, whether the agreement 9 encompasses the dispute at issue.” Lifescan, Inc. v. Premier Diabetic Servs., Inc., 363 F.3d 1010, 10 1012 (9th Cir. 2004). If the party seeking to compel arbitration establishes both factors, the 11 district court “must order the parties to proceed to arbitration only in accordance with the terms of 12 their agreement.” Id. “Any doubts about the scope of arbitrable issues should be decided in favor 13 of arbitration.” Williams, 417 F. Supp. 3d at 1239 (citing Three Valleys Mun. Water Dist. v. E.F. 14 Hutton & Co., Inc., 925 F.2d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 1991)); see also Martinez v. Ross Stores, Inc., 15 No. 18-cv-04636-JD, 2019 WL 4221704, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2019); McLellan v. Fitbit, 16 Inc., No. 3:16-cv-00036-JD, 2018 WL 1913832, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2018). 17 There is no question that a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement exists between 18 Healthsource and the named plaintiffs. The arbitration agreement plaintiffs signed was clear and 19 straightforward. See Dkt. No. 29-1, Exs. A, B. By signing the agreement, each plaintiff 20 acknowledged that they read the agreement, understood its terms, and entered into the agreement 21 voluntarily. Id. Ex. A. ¶ 7, Ex. B ¶ 7; see also Jacobson v. Snap-on Tools Co., Case No. 15-cv- 22 02141-JD, 2015 WL 8293164, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2015) (arbitration agreement was valid and 23 enforceable even though plaintiff did not read the terms). 24 The arbitration agreement covers all eleven claims in the complaint. Plaintiffs’ wage and 25 hour claims, meal and rest break claims, and derivative unfair business practices claims are all are 26 rooted in their employment relationship with Healthsource and consequently subject to arbitration. 27 See Dkt. No. 1-2, Ex. I ¶¶ 32-86; Dkt. No. 29-1, Ex. A ¶ 2, Ex. B ¶ 2. So too for plaintiffs’ claims 1 brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), which rest on the same 2 allegations. Dkt. No. 1-2, Ex. 1 89; Cal. Lab. Code § 2698. 3 With respect to specific questions about the scope of the arbitration, such as whether the 4 || parties waived class or representative actions, the arbitration agreement incorporates the American 5 Arbitration Association (AAA) rules for employment cases. Dkt. No. 29-1, Ex. A ¥ 2, Ex. B ¥ 2.
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 PATRICIA LOUIS, et al., Case No. 22-cv-02436-JD
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE ARBITRATION v. 9
10 HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL STAFFING, INC., 11 Defendant.
12 13 Defendant Healthsource Global Staffing, Inc., asks for an order compelling the individual 14 claims of named plaintiffs Patricia Louis and Morgan Murray to arbitration pursuant to the parties’ 15 arbitration agreements and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Healthsource filed a motion to 16 compel arbitration on August 15, 2022. Dkt. No. 29. Under Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), plaintiffs’ 17 opposition was due on August 29, 2022. On September 6, 2022, Healthsource filed a notice that 18 plaintiffs had not filed or served a response to the motion. Dkt. No. 30. To date, plaintiffs have 19 not filed a response, or otherwise opposed the arbitration demand. 20 Why this is so is not clear, especially since plaintiffs briefed a motion to remand and have 21 actively engaged with this case in other respects. See Dkt. Nos. 20, 21, 22. The record 22 demonstrates that plaintiffs had notice of the arbitration demand. The parties submitted a joint 23 case management statement on July 14, 2022, stating that “Defendant claims that Plaintiffs signed 24 arbitration agreements as part of their work with HSG and Plaintiffs plan to conduct discovery on 25 the arbitrability of their claims,” and that Healthsource “anticipates filing a Motion to Compel 26 Arbitration intended to be heard on August 25, 2022, on the basis that Plaintiffs entered into a 27 written agreement to arbitrate all claims arising out of their employment with HSG.” See Dkt. No. 1 May 23, 2022, and the parties met and conferred regarding individual arbitration on June 28, 2022, 2 but plaintiffs declined to stipulate to arbitration. Dkt. No. 29 at 2. 3 Plaintiffs’ failure to oppose the demand is enough in itself to compel arbitration. Even so, 4 the Court independently reviewed the arbitration demand, and concludes that the claims are 5 arbitrable. Consequently, the case is ordered to arbitration. 6 DISCUSSION 7 Plaintiffs Louis and Murray signed arbitration agreements with Healthsource in June 2017 8 and November 2018, respectively. Dkt. No. 29 at 5-6; Dkt. No. 29-1 ¶¶ 11, 13. In effect, the 9 named plaintiffs and Healthsource committed to the same arbitration agreement for all parties. 10 The 2017 and 2018 agreements expressly state that they are governed by the FAA. Dkt. No. 29-1, 11 Ex. A ¶ 4, Ex. B ¶ 4. Each agreement provides that “any and all disputes arising out of, in 12 connection with, or relating to your employment agreement with HealthSource, your employment 13 with HealthSource, and any and all previous and future employment relationships with 14 HealthSource, including with respect to the termination of such employment or other and any 15 dispute as to the validity, interpretation, construction, application or enforcement of any provision 16 of the operative employment agreement, shall be submitted to binding arbitration before a neutral 17 arbitrator.” Id. Ex. A ¶ 2, Ex. B ¶ 2. The parties agreed that “class action and representative 18 action procedures shall not be asserted” in any arbitration, and that the parties will not “assert class 19 action or representative action claims against the other in arbitration or otherwise.” Id. The 20 agreements also provide that plaintiffs may revoke their assent within thirty days of signing, but 21 neither plaintiff did so. Id. ¶¶ 11, 13, Ex. A ¶ 7, Ex. B. ¶ 7. 22 The FAA governs here. The FAA applies to contracts “evidencing a transaction involving 23 commerce.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. The Supreme Court has interpreted “involving commerce” “as the 24 functional equivalent of the more familiar term ‘affecting commerce’ -- words of art that 25 ordinarily signal the broadest permissible exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause power.” 26 Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc., 539 U.S. 52, 56 (2003) (per curiam). Healthsource engages in 27 interstate commerce because it recruits nurses from all fifty states, and its employees work in 1 arbitration agreements also expressly state that the FAA governs. Id., Ex. A ¶ 4, Ex. B ¶ 4; see 2 also Williams v. Eaze Sols., Inc., 417 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1238 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (FAA applied 3 where terms of service stated that the FAA governed the interpretation and enforcement of the 4 dispute resolution section). 5 The FAA’s “overarching purpose ... is to ensure the enforcement of arbitration agreements 6 according to their terms so as to facilitate streamlined proceedings.” AT&T Mobility LLC v. 7 Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 344 (2011). Under Section 4 of the FAA, the Court’s role “is limited 8 to determining whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and, if so, whether the agreement 9 encompasses the dispute at issue.” Lifescan, Inc. v. Premier Diabetic Servs., Inc., 363 F.3d 1010, 10 1012 (9th Cir. 2004). If the party seeking to compel arbitration establishes both factors, the 11 district court “must order the parties to proceed to arbitration only in accordance with the terms of 12 their agreement.” Id. “Any doubts about the scope of arbitrable issues should be decided in favor 13 of arbitration.” Williams, 417 F. Supp. 3d at 1239 (citing Three Valleys Mun. Water Dist. v. E.F. 14 Hutton & Co., Inc., 925 F.2d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 1991)); see also Martinez v. Ross Stores, Inc., 15 No. 18-cv-04636-JD, 2019 WL 4221704, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2019); McLellan v. Fitbit, 16 Inc., No. 3:16-cv-00036-JD, 2018 WL 1913832, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2018). 17 There is no question that a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement exists between 18 Healthsource and the named plaintiffs. The arbitration agreement plaintiffs signed was clear and 19 straightforward. See Dkt. No. 29-1, Exs. A, B. By signing the agreement, each plaintiff 20 acknowledged that they read the agreement, understood its terms, and entered into the agreement 21 voluntarily. Id. Ex. A. ¶ 7, Ex. B ¶ 7; see also Jacobson v. Snap-on Tools Co., Case No. 15-cv- 22 02141-JD, 2015 WL 8293164, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2015) (arbitration agreement was valid and 23 enforceable even though plaintiff did not read the terms). 24 The arbitration agreement covers all eleven claims in the complaint. Plaintiffs’ wage and 25 hour claims, meal and rest break claims, and derivative unfair business practices claims are all are 26 rooted in their employment relationship with Healthsource and consequently subject to arbitration. 27 See Dkt. No. 1-2, Ex. I ¶¶ 32-86; Dkt. No. 29-1, Ex. A ¶ 2, Ex. B ¶ 2. So too for plaintiffs’ claims 1 brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), which rest on the same 2 allegations. Dkt. No. 1-2, Ex. 1 89; Cal. Lab. Code § 2698. 3 With respect to specific questions about the scope of the arbitration, such as whether the 4 || parties waived class or representative actions, the arbitration agreement incorporates the American 5 Arbitration Association (AAA) rules for employment cases. Dkt. No. 29-1, Ex. A ¥ 2, Ex. B ¥ 2. 6 || Rule 6(a) of the AAA Employment Arbitration Rules provides that “[t]he arbitrator shall have the 7 power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, 8 || scope or validity of the arbitration agreement.” The “incorporation of the AAA rules constitutes 9 clear and unmistakable evidence that contracting parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability.” Brennan 10 || v. Opus Bank, 796 F.3d 1125, 1128, 1130 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing the same AAA rule). 11 Consequently, the parties have agreed to delegate such issues to the arbitrator for decision. 12 || See McLellan v. Fitbit, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-00036-JD, 2017 WL 4551484, at *1-3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5 13 11, 2017) incorporation of AAA rules in the arbitration agreement “compels arbitration of 14 || arbitrability” under Brennan, even without “an express statement” of delegation). The Court 3 15 || reaches no conclusions about these issues here. 16 CONCLUSION 3 17 The claims in the complaint are referred to arbitration. Healthsource asked to dismiss, or 18 || in the alternative, to stay the action pending arbitration. See Dkt. No. 29 at 14. “[A] district court 19 may either stay the action or dismiss it outright when, as here, the court determines that all of the 20 claims raised in the action are subject to arbitration.” Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale’s, Inc., 21 755 F.3d 1072, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2014). The case is dismissed without prejudice. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: October 3, 2022 24 25 6 JAMES/PONATO United Ptates District Judge 27 28