Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00371/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00371-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

1

 The Court directed defendant to file its opposition by February 27, 2006. The opposition was filed one day late

on February 28, 2006, although it was timely served. Defendant’s counsel, Marlene Muraco, submitted a declaration

indicating that the delay in filing was the result of an internet connection problem. The Court finds that the one day delay

is excused, and it will consider the substance of the opposition.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRANTINA A. DAVIS, CASE NO. CV-F-05-00371 LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION FOR RELIEF OF 

STAY AND TO AMEND COMPLAINT

vs. (Doc. 41)

CIGNA HEALTHCARE,

Defendant.

 /

On February 9, 2006, plaintiff Grantrina A. Davis (“plaintiff’) filed two motions: (1) an ex parte

application requesting the Court find defense counsel and defendant in contempt for providing false

information to the Court, and (2) motion for relief from stay and to amend the pleading. The Court

denied the request for contempt, but requested briefing from defendant on plaintiff’s motion for relief

from the stay and to amend the pleadings. On February 28, 2006, defendant filed its opposition to

plaintiff’s motion.1 The Court then took the motion under submission without further argument pursuant

to Local Rule 78-230(h).

This Court’s Order to Compel Arbitration

This Court’sJuly25, 2005 order compelled arbitration of plaintiff’s claims pursuant to defendant

Case 1:05-cv-00371-TAG Document 45 Filed 03/08/06 Page 1 of 3
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 Although plaintiff’s complaint names CIGNA Healthcare as defendant, plaintiff was employed by

Connecticut General, a subsidiary of CIGNA Corporation (“CIGNA”). Plaintiff erroneously sues Connecticut General as

CIGNA Healthcare.

2

Connecticut General Life Insurance Company’s 2 arbitration policy and rules. This Court determined

that: 

Ms. Davis raises no substantive dispute as to a valid agreement to

arbitrate her employment claims or as to the scope of claims subject to

arbitration. Plaintiff’s employment application subjects to arbitration

“ANY DISPUTE ABOUT MY CANDIDACY FOR EMPLOYMENT,

EMPLOYMENT OR CESSATION OF EMPLOYMENT

EXCLUSIVELY.” (Uppercase and underlining in original.) A broad

clause subjecting to arbitration disputes arising under or in connection

with employment presumptively covers all employment-related

controversies. See Oldroyd v. Elmira Savings Bank, FSB, 134 F.3d 72,

76 (2nd Cir. 1998). (Doc. 36, Order on Motion to Compel Arbitration, p.

8:6-12.)

In conjunction with the Court order compelling arbitration before the American Arbitration Association

(“AAA”), the Court stayed this action. (Doc. 36, Order on Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 9.)

Request to Amend and to Lift Stay

Construing plaintiff’s motion most favorably to plaintiff, plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint

and lift the stay to pursue the claims in this Court. 

Plaintiff did not attach a proposed complaint, but defendant indicates that plaintiff served a

proposed second amended complaint on defendant on or about October 23, 2005. Defendant states that

the second amended complaint purported to add several individual defendants along with ten new causes

of action for: 1) Interference with Civil Rights in Violation of Title VIII of the 1964 Discrimination and

Sexual Harassment; 2) Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act; 3) Violation of California Labor Code;

4) Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices in Violation of California Business & Professions Code; 5)

Violation of Federal Employment Compensation Act; 6) Fraud; 7) Violation of Civil RICO 1961, 1964;

8) Interference with Civil Rights in Violation of California Civil Code § 51.7, 52.1; 9) Interference with

Civil Rights in Violation of American with Disabilities Act & Rehabilitation Act of 1973, California

Civil Code § 54 & 42 U.S.C. § 1981; 10: Violation of HIPAA 1996; Unlawful Disclosure of Medical

Information California Civil Code §§ 56-56.37; and 11) Wrongful Discharge. Defendant asserts that

each of the claims arise from plaintiff’s employment with defendant or her alleged termination

Case 1:05-cv-00371-TAG Document 45 Filed 03/08/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

therefrom. In addition, plaintiff seeks to amend to add names she has used and to name additional

parties.

Defendant represents that the parties are currently pursuing selection of an AAA arbitrator.

Defendant indicates that this process should be completed shortly. Once complete, a schedule will be

devised and discovery may begin. Defendant argues that the amendment to the complaint is not

necessary because the plaintiff’s second amended complaint has been submitted to the AAA and will

form the basis of the claims the parties will be arbitrating. Defendant argues that if plaintiff wants to

demand arbitration against additional parties, she should do so through the auspices of AAA.

As previously held by this Court, plaintiff is subject to a broad arbitration agreement which

covers any employment related disputes. The proposed claims in the second amended complaint relate

to plaintiff’s former employment. As represented to this Court, the second amended complaint has been

forwarded to the AAA. The Court previously ordered the case to arbitration for similar claims when the

arbitration provision was brought to the Court’s attention. The proposed claims are also subject to the

jurisdiction of AAA pursuant to the arbitration provision and not subject to this Court’s jurisdiction.

The Court must give due regard to the federal policy in favor of arbitration by resolving ambiguities as

to the scope of arbitration in favor of arbitration. Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 12 F.3d

908, 914 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1205, 114 S.Ct. 2675, 129 L.Ed.2d 810 (1994).

Therefore, further proceedings must occur before the AAA. 

Conclusion

The motion to amend and for relief of the stay is DENIED. The April 19, 2006 status conference

at 8:30 a.m in dept. 8 will remain on calendar.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00371-TAG Document 45 Filed 03/08/06 Page 3 of 3