Maharaj v. Charter Communications, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEVANAN MAHARAJ, Case No. 20-cv-00064-BAS-WVG

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD AND 14 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., TO LIFT STAY 15 Defendant. (ECF No. 70) 16

17 On October 27, 2021, the Court compelled to arbitration Plaintiff Devanan 18 Maharaj’s individual wage-and-hour claims pursuant to the Mutual Arbitration 19 Agreement (“MAA”) he had executed with Defendant Charter Communications, Inc., 20 dismissed the wage-and-hour claims brought on a classwide basis, and stayed Maharaj’s 21 Private Attorney General Act claim. (Arbitration Order at 21, ECF No. 67.) Arbitration 22 between Maharaj and Charter Communications ensued beginning in October 2022. (Joint 23 Mot. at 2, ECF No. 70.) Shortly thereafter, Maharaj moved for the agreed-upon arbitrator 24 to set aside the MAA as procedurally and substantively unconscionable. (Joint Mot. at 25 2.) The arbitrator granted that motion, reasoning the MAA not only is a procedurally 26 unconscionable contract of adhesion, but also is substantively unconscionable in light of 27 the California Court of Appeal decision in Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc., 75 28 1 ||Cal. App. Sth 365 (2022), decided after this Court’s Arbitration Order. (Arbitrator’s 2 || Decision at 2, Ex. 1 to Joint Mot., ECF No. 70 (noting the Ramirez Court found the same 3 ||MAA “substantive[ly] unconscionab[le] due to its being one-sided, requiring the 4 ||employee to reimburse costs usually charged to the employer, exempting certain claims 5 || typically brought by employees, and unreasonably restricting discovery’’).)! 6 After purportedly meeting and conferring for five months, the parties filed their 7 || Joint Motion on July 7, 2023, requesting this Court to confirm the “arbitration award,” 8 the arbitrator’s decision setting aside the MAA, and to lift the stay in this action. 9 The Joint Motion is GRANTED. The Court CONFIRMS the arbitrator’s decision 10 setting aside the MAA; LIFTS the stay issued in this matter, VACATES its dismissal of 11 ||the class-action claims in the First Amended Complaint”; and DIRECTS the Clerk of 12 Court to reopen the case. The parties are ORDERED to contact, by no later than July 13 2023, newly assigned United States Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo to schedule a 14 Management Conference. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. / 16 || DATED: July 12, 2023 Cy wy UG (isha. 6 How. Cynthia Bashant 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I □ The arbitrator acknowledged in her decision Ramirez is pending review on appeal by the 26 || California Supreme Court. (Arbitrator’s Decision at 2); see Ramirez, 510 P.3d 404 (2022). ? This Court dismissed without Maharaj’s class-action claims on the basis Maharaj “c[ould] not 27 || continue to serve as class representative of the putative class” given the Court’s decision to compel his 28 individual claims to arbitration. (Arbitration Order at 20:13-16.) This action’s return to federal court undercuts entirely the justification for this Court’s dismissal. □□