Saidwal v. Flagship

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 BIBI NOHIA SAIDWAL, Case No. 19-cv-08211-JSW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING JOINT STATUS 9 v. REPORTS

10 FLAGSHIP, Re: Dkt. Nos. 74, 75 Defendant. 11

12 13 The Court has received and considered the parties’ status reports regarding arbitration. 14 Although this matter remains stayed pending a final ruling from the Arbitrator, the Court issues 15 this Order to respond to a request Plaintiff makes in her status report to proceed with a portion of a 16 claim the arbitrator referenced as outside the scope of the DRA. Plaintiff attaches the Arbitrator’s 17 ruling on arbitrability with her report. In that ruling, the Arbitrator referred to arguments raised by 18 Plaintiff that Defendant may have violated 18 U.S.C. section 1001. (Plaintiff’s Status, Arbitrator’s 19 Ruling at ECF p. 4; Plaintiff’s Status at ECF p. 2.) The Arbitrator stated such a claim did not 20 appear in the complaint, could not appear in the complaint, and was not within the scope of the 21 DRA. (Arbitrator’s Ruling at ECF p. 4.) 22 Plaintiff construes that ruling as permitting her to pursue such a claim in court. However, 23 without an indication that Congress intended to permit individuals like Plaintiff to bring claims 24 based on a violation of a criminal statute, she cannot do so. There is no such Congressional intent 25 here. See, e.g., Lee v. U.S.A.I.D., 859 F.3d 74, 76-78 (D.C. Cir. 2017); Hazzard v. Schaaf, No. 22- 26 cv-2921-JSW, 2022 WL 5101769, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2022). 27 The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to litigate a claim based on a violation of 18 U.S.C. ] Arbitrator’s final ruling, whichever is sooner.

3 Dated: March 7, 2023 / } □ { } 4 f ~ JEEFREY/S /WHIT 5 United yt Distryft Judge

7 8 9 10 1]

«17

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28