Sels v. Affirm, Inc.

Opinion

ARDEN MARIE SELS, Case No. 24-cv-1556-BAS-MMP

Plaintiff, ORDER STAYING CLAIMS v. AGAINST EXPERIAN PENDING ARBITRATION AFFIRM, INC.; EXPERIAN

INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants.

A little over a month ago, Plaintiff Arden Marie Sels (“Plaintiff” or “Sels”) and Defendant Affirm, Inc. (“Affirm”) jointly moved the Court, in accordance with 9 U.S.C. § 3, to submit all of Plaintiff’s claims against Affirm to binding arbitration and to stay all judicial proceedings pursuant to an arbitration agreement between Affirm and Plaintiff. (ECF No. 11.) The Court granted the joint motion and ordered Plaintiff and Affirm to binding arbitration. (ECF No. 12.) Accordingly, all proceedings and deadlines in this action, as they related to Affirm, were stayed pending the conclusion of arbitration. With the claims against one defendant compelled to arbitration, the Court was left to deal with the remaining claims against the other defendant, Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”). See Jenkins v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., 2018 WL 922386, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2018) (“[I]f a court finds that the plaintiff asserts both arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims, district courts have ‘discretion whether to proceed with the | ||nonarbitrable claims before or after the arbitration and [have] ... authority to stay proceedings in the interest of saving time and effort for itself and litigants.’” (quoting Wilcox v. Ho-Wing Sit, 586 F. Supp. 561, 567 (N.D. Cal. 1984))); see also Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979) (holding that the defendant “was not entitled to a stay pursuant to section 3 of the Arbitration Act” on a nonarbitrable claim, but noting that “sound reasons may exist” for the district court to stay the action based on its inherent authority to control its docket). To help it resolve the question, the Court requested supplemental briefing from both Plaintiff and Experian as to whether the Court should stay Plaintiff's claims against Experian while Plaintiff's claims ;against Affirm were in binding arbitration. The Court requested the parties submit the supplemental briefing on or before November 27, 2024. That day has come and gone, but neither party has submitted anything to the Court, let alone the requested briefing. Therefore, finding it is in the interest of judicial economy to consider all claims stemming from the same set of facts at one time, and exercising the Court’s inherent authority, Plaintiff's claims against Experian are also STAYED pending an outcome in Sels and Affirm’s arbitration. Within fourteen (14) days of the conclusion of arbitration proceedings, Plaintiff and Experian shall either file a joint request to lift the stay or file a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against Experian. ) DATED: December 3, 2024 (uf iw uA A (Lohan 6 United States District Judge 4.