Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02309/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02309-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW DWYER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DYNETECH CORP.,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-02309 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2007 AT 9:00 A.M.

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does

not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to

rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing

counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available

at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit

the citations to the authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil

Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their

reliance on such authority.

The Court tentatively GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant’s

motion as follows: (1) the Court tentatively concludes the arbitration agreement is

enforceable and shall stay the action in favor of arbitration to occur within this judicial

district, and (2) tentatively denies as moot the motion to dismiss.

Case 3:07-cv-02309-JSW Document 22 Filed 09/11/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

The parties each shall have fifteen minutes to address the following questions:

1. Defendants move to dismiss on the basis of the forum selection clause. That clause,

however, is contained within the arbitration clause. Why should the Court not evaluate

whether the arbitration clause is enforceable before it evaluates the issue of venue? See,

e.g., Nagrampa v. Mailcoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 2006) (addressing validity of

forum selection clause pertaining to arbitration agreement in the context of determining

whether arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable).

a. Do the parties believe that, at this time, there is sufficient information before the

Court for the Court to resolve the question of whether the arbitration clause is

enforceable? If not, what additional information do the parties believe is

necessary?

b. Defendants assert that Plaintiff did not request any changes to the Letter

Agreement. Can Defendants represent to the Court that if Plaintiff had objected

to the Arbitration Agreement, they would have agreed to remove that provision

of the Letter Agreement?

c. The Court recognizes that Plaintiff contends that the Arbitration Agreement’s

provisions would not enable him to vindicate his statutory rights. Setting that

argument aside, are there any claims for relief that Plaintiff contends cannot be

arbitrated? See, e.g., Gilmer v. Interstate Johnson/Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 26-

28 (1991) (statutory claims may be arbitrated “unless Congress itself has evinced

an intention to preclude waiver of judicial remedies for the statutory rights at

issue,” and the litigant can effectively vindicate “[his or her] statutory cause of

action in the arbitral forum”).

2. What is the Defendants’ position on the amount of fees, if any, Plaintiff would be

required to pay to arbitrate these claims? See Armendariz v. Foundation Health

Psychcare Servs., Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 83, 113 (2000) (“a mandatory employment arbitration

agreement that contains within its scope the arbitration of FEHA claims impliedly

obliges the employer to pay all types of costs that are unique to arbitration”).

3. Given the Defendants’ alternative request that the Court stay the action in favor of

arbitration, do Defendants have any authority to support the proposition that the Court

should not construe their motion as a petition to compel arbitration? If not, do

Defendants concede that under Ninth Circuit authority, this Court must compel

arbitration within this judicial district. See, e.g., Continental Grain Co. v. Dant &

Russell, 118 F.2d 967, 968-69 (9th Cir. 1941); see also Homestake Lead Company of

Missouri v. Doe Run Resources Corp., 282 F. Supp. 2d 1131, 1143-1144 (N.D. Cal.

2003) (noting concern with this interpretation but finding that court was precluded from

ordering arbitration in contractually designated forum)?

4. Are there any other issues the parties wish to address?

Dated: September 11, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-02309-JSW Document 22 Filed 09/11/07 Page 2 of 2