Travis Bernards v. IKEA Distribution Services, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: June 17, 2026
• Docket: 4:24-cv-06872
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TRAVIS BERNARDS, Case No. 24-cv-06872-ASK

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. COMPEL ARBITRATION

10 IKEA DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 30 Defendant. 11

12 Defendant IKEA Distribution Services, Inc. (“IKEA”) moved to compel arbitration of the 13 wage and hour claims brought by Plaintiff Travis Bernards. See Dkt. 30-1 at 6 (“Motion to 14 Compel”). The deadline to respond to the Motion to Compel has passed, and Bernards has filed no 15 opposition. See Dkt. 31 at 2. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the Motion to 16 Compel, orders the parties to proceed to arbitration, and stays this action pending arbitration. 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 Bernards worked as an IKEA hourly employee from 2018 to 2024. Dkt. 1, Ex. 1 at 3 19 (“Complaint”). In October 2022, IKEA introduced a mutual arbitration agreement called the 20 “IKEA Alternative Dispute Resolution Agreement” that obligated IKEA and signing employees to 21 resolve their legal disputes in binding arbitration. Motion to Compel at 6; see Dkt. 30, Ex. A at 7 22 (“Arbitration Agreement” or “Agreement”). The Agreement covers, inter alia, “all claims 23 pertaining to Employee’s past, present, or future employment or other relationship with Company 24 . . . and all claims for . . . wages, overtime, or other compensation . . . or violation of any federal, 25 state, or local law.” Agreement at 6. The Agreement also provides that it is “governed by the 26 Federal Arbitration Act.” Id. at 6; see 9 U.S.C. §§ 1–16 (“FAA”). Bernards signed the Arbitration 27 Agreement via Docusign on November 7, 2022. Motion to Compel at 7; see Agreement at 9–10. 1 himself and other similarly situated employees that IKEA failed to pay him for hours worked, 2 failed to permit him proper meal and rest periods, failed to provide him with accurate wage 3 statements, and engaged in various other illegal pay practices. Complaint at 3–12. IKEA removed 4 to this Court the next month, see Dkt. 1 at 2, and now moves to compel arbitration, see Motion to 5 Compel. 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 By its terms, the FAA “requires district courts to compel arbitration of claims covered by 8 an enforceable arbitration agreement.” Berman v. Freedom Fin. Network, LLC, 30 F.4th 849, 855 9 (9th Cir. 2022) (citing 9 U.S.C. § 3). “The court’s role under the [FAA] is therefore limited to 10 determining (1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and, if it does, (2) whether the 11 agreement encompasses the dispute at issue.” Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 12 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). “If the response is affirmative on both counts, 13 then the Act requires the court to enforce the arbitration agreement in accordance with its terms.” 14 Id. 15 To make these determinations, “district courts rely on the summary judgment standard of 16 Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” See Hansen v. LMB Mortg. Servs., Inc., 1 F.4th 17 667, 670 (9th Cir. 2021) (citing, inter alia, Tabas v. MoviePass, Inc., 401 F. Supp. 3d 928, 936 18 (N.D. Cal. 2019)). Accordingly, IKEA must show that there is no genuine issue as to any material 19 fact regarding either the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate or whether the agreement 20 encompasses the dispute at issue. See Chiron, 207 F.3d at 1130; Singh v. Adobe Inc., 797 F. Supp. 21 3d 1038, 1044 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (citing Hansen, 1 F.4th at 670) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 22 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)) (“To prevail under the summary 23 judgment standard, Adobe must show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact regarding 24 formation of the arbitration contract.”); Tabas, 401 F. Supp. 3d at 936 (“Only when there is no 25 genuine issue of fact concerning the formation of the arbitration agreement should the court decide 26 as a matter of law that the parties did or did not enter into such an agreement.” (quoting Three 27 Valleys Mun. Water Dist. v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 925 F.2d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 1991))). 1 law principles of contract formation.” Berman, 30 F.4th at 855 (citing First Options of Chicago, 2 Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944 (1995)). “To form a contract under . . . California law, the 3 parties must manifest their mutual assent to the terms of the agreement,” which they may do “by 4 written or spoken word.” Id. (citing Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., 306 F.3d 17, 29 5 (2d Cir. 2002)). “The test is whether a reasonable person would, from the conduct of the parties, 6 conclude that there was a mutual agreement.” Marin Storage & Trucking, Inc. v. Benco 7 Contracting & Eng’g, Inc., 89 Cal. App. 4th 1042, 1050 (2001), as modified (June 8, 2001) 8 (citations omitted). The record adduced by IKEA, including the Arbitration Agreement signed by 9 Bernards, supplies evidence that a valid agreement to arbitrate exists. See Motion to Compel at 10 10–12; see generally Agreement. 11 So too has IKEA established that the Agreement encompasses the dispute at issue. The 12 Agreement covers “all claims for . . . wages, overtime, or other compensation . . . or violation of 13 any federal, state, or local law,” Agreement at 6, and Bernards brings just such wage and hour 14 claims, see Complaint at 18–30. IKEA has asserted that all claims are arbitrable. See Motion to 15 Compel at 14–15. 16 Bernards has not opposed. See Dkt. 31. Under Rule 56(e), “if a party fails to . . . properly 17 address another party’s assertion of fact,” the Court may “consider the fact undisputed for 18 purposes of the motion” or “grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials— 19 including the facts considered undisputed—show that the movant is entitled to it[.]” Fed. R. Civ. 20 P. 56(e). The Court finds here that Bernards has failed to properly address IKEA’s assertions that 21 a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and that such agreement encompasses the dispute at issue, see 22 Chiron, 207 F.3d at 1130; accordingly, under Rule 56(e)(2) the Court considers those facts 23 undisputed, see id. Pursuant to the FAA, the Court is therefore “require[d] to enforce the 24 arbitration agreement in accordance with its terms.” Chiron, 207 F.3d at 1130. 25 The Court does so. Bernards and IKEA are ordered to enter arbitration in accordance with 26 the terms of the Arbitration Agreement. See id.; see generally Agreement. Pursuant to Section 27 Three of the FAA, this action is stayed pending arbitration. See 9 U.S.C. § 3; Martin Marietta ] pending compliance with a contractual arbitration clause.”). By December 17, 2026, the parties 2 || shall file a joint statement updating the court on the status of arbitration. If by that date the parties 3 have not begun arbitration, the Court will dismiss this action. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: June 17, 2026 6 . 7 AJ ISHNAN 8 Unfted States Magistrate Judge 9 10 1] a 12

13 14

15 16

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