Madera v. Comenity Capital Bank

Opinion

CAROLINA MADERA, Case No.: 3:23-cv-02124-RBM-BGS

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING v. (1) JOINT MOTION TO STAY COMENITY CAPITAL BANK and ACTION AND ARBITRATE EXPERIAN INFORMATION CLAIMS AS TO COMENITY SOLUTIONS, INC., CAPITAL BANK Defendants. (2) STIPULATION TO SUBMIT CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT EXPERIAN INFORMATION

ARBITRATION AND TO STAY CASE AS TO EXPERIAN

[Docs. 19, 20]

On February 20, 2024, Plaintiff Carolina Madera (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Comenity Capital Bank (“Comenity”) filed a Joint Motion to Stay Action and Arbitrate Claims as to Comenity Only (“Joint Motion”). (Doc. 19.) In the Joint Motion, Plaintiff and Comenity stipulated to stay this action and submit Plaintiff’s claims against Comenity to binding individual arbitration. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff and Comenity contend that “the credit card agreement at issue in this case contain[s] an arbitration provision requiring the parties to arbitrate their claims if either party makes a demand to arbitrate.” (Id.) The credit card agreement is attached to the Joint Motion as Exhibit 1. (Doc. 19-1.) The credit card agreement contains a section entitled, “Arbitration and Jury Trial Waiver,” in which the parties to the agreement “waive[d] any right to trial by jury in the event of a lawsuit arising out of or related to [the] [a]greement.” (Id. at 2.) Shortly thereafter, on February 21, 2024, Plaintiff and Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”) filed a Stipulation to Submit Claims Against Experian to Arbitration and to Stay Case as to Experian (“Stipulation”). (Doc. 20.) In the Stipulation, Plaintiff and Experian indicate that “Plaintiff does not presently dispute Experian’s request to arbitrate the merits of Plaintiff’s dispute against Experian in this action.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff and Experian also “stipulate[d] to stay the action as to Plaintiff’s claims against Experian only, pending completion of the arbitration.” (Id.) District courts have “broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). Granting a stay “is appropriate when it serves the interests of judicial economy and efficiency.” Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997). A district court “may ... find it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). That “rule applies whether the separate proceedings are judicial, administrative, or arbitral in character ….” Id. at 863–64. However, “a district court may [also] … dismiss [an action] outright when ... the court determines that all of the claims raised in the action are subject to arbitration.” Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale’s, Inc., 755 F.3d 1072, 1074 (9th Cir. 2014); see also Gadomski v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., 281 F. Supp. 3d 1015, 1021 (E.D. Cal. 2018) (“‘[B]ecause both claims are to be arbitrated, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims in favor of arbitration.’’). Here, Plaintiff and both defendants have agreed to pursue arbitration and stay the present action. The Court is not inclined to depart from the parties’ agreements. Accordingly, the Joint Motion and Stipulation are GRANTED. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff and Comenity, and Plaintiff and Experian, to submit to binding arbitration(s). The Court STAYS this action pending the completion of any arbitration. The Court also VACATES any pending deadlines. Further, the parties must FILE a joint status report, not to exceed five (5) pages, to update the Court on the arbitration proceedings every 180 days, starting from the date of this Order, and within 14 days of the proceedings’ completion. DATE: April 26, 2024 _< Fatt Earn, MoitggsD HON. RUTH BERMUBEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE