Ma v. Twitter, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 11, 2024
• Docket: 4:23-cv-03301
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 FABIEN HO CHING MA, et al., Case No. 23-cv-03301-JST

8 Petitioners, ORDER REQUIRING 9 v. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING AND CONTINUING HEARING DATE 10 TWITTER, INC., et al., Re: ECF No. 26 Respondents. 11

12 13 Before the Court is Petitioners’ motion to compel arbitration and for preliminary 14 injunction. ECF No. 26. Having reviewed the parties’ briefs, the Court now orders supplemental 15 briefing on the following questions: 16 1. Does the putative class in this case include any individuals against whom Twitter1 has 17 successfully moved to compel arbitration in other cases? If so, how, if at all, does that impact the 18 Court’s consideration of this motion? 19 2. If the Court agrees with Petitioners that they may move to compel arbitration in this 20 district even though the arbitrations at issue were filed outside this district, must the Court compel 21 arbitration to occur in this district notwithstanding the venue provisions of the arbitration 22 agreements? See 9 U.S.C. § 4; Textile Unlimited, Inc. v. A..BMH & Co., 240 F.3d 781, 785 23 (9th Cir. 2001); Cont’l Grain Co. v. Dant & Russell, Inc., 118 F.2d 967, 968–69 (9th Cir. 1941). 24 3. Do the different versions of the arbitration agreements have any impact on the Court’s 25 rulings, or should the results be the same regardless of which version Petitioner signed? 26 1 The Court follows Respondents’ lead in referring to Respondents as “Twitter.” ECF No. 35 27 at 8 n.2 (“Though named in the Amended Petition (Dkt. 6), Twitter, Inc. no longer exists, and its 1 4. The arbitration agreements provide, “If under applicable law the Company is not 2 || required to pay all of the Arbitrator’s and/or arbitration fees, such fee(s) will be apportioned 3 between the parties in accordance with said applicable law, and any disputes in that regard will be 4 resolved by the Arbitrator.” E.g., ECF No. 6-1 at 4, 21 (emphasis added). JAMS and AAA have 5 || ruled on the parties’ disputes regarding payment of fees. Assuming Petitioners’ motion is 6 || procedurally proper, does the Court have the authority to reverse those rulings? 7 5. If the Court reaches the question, does “applicable law” in states in which Twitter has 8 not paid initial arbitration fees require fee-splitting or merely allow it under certain conditions? If 9 |} the latter, how should that impact the Court’s analysis? 10 Twitter shall file a supplemental brief on or before March 22, 2024. Petitioners may file a 11 responsive supplemental brief on or before April 5, 2024. Each brief may not exceed 15 pages, 12 || not including exhibits. The March 14, 2024 motion hearing is continued to May 2, 2024. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. || Dated: March 11, 2024 C A 2 . © Z JON S. TIGA a 16 nited States District Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28