Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04805/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04805-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

United States District Court

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DANIEL GERTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

FORTISS, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-04805-TEH 

ORDER RE: HEARING ON

MOTION TO COMPEL 

ARBITRATION

Counsel shall be prepared to address the following questions at the February 1, 

2016 hearing on Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration:

For Both Parties:

1. The parties’ papers present some confusion as to the timing of the events

giving rise to the dispute. Please confirm that the following timeline is correct, and 

fill in blank dates with references to exhibits where possible: 

 February __, 2013: Plaintiff signs Fortiss’ “Employee Release 

Authorization.” (Ex. A to Compl.)

 February __, 2013: Fortiss runs background/credit check on Plaintiff. 

 February 25, 2013: Knighted Ventures offers Plaintiff employment; 

Plaintiff signs Knighted Ventures’ “Agreement to Mediate and Arbitrate 

Disputes” (Ex. A to Grewohl Decl.); Knighted Ventures hires Plaintiff.

The Court is mainly interested in (1) whether the two agreements were signed by 

Plaintiff at the same time, as part of a “pre-hire package” (Pl.’s Opp’n at 3) or were 

presented to Plaintiff on two distinct occasions; and (2) how much time passed 

Case 3:15-cv-04805-TEH Document 25 Filed 01/29/16 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

Northern District of California

2

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

between Plaintiff signing the Release Authorization, Fortiss performing the 

background/credit check, and Knighted Ventures hiring Plaintiff. 

For Plaintiff:

2. You contend that there was no way for Plaintiff to opt out of the class action 

waiver (see Pl.’s Opp’n at 4, 10), but what if Plaintiff had simply not initialed the 

line below the class action section of the arbitration agreement? Would that have 

constituted opting out?

3. If the Court concludes that Fortiss is an agent of Knighted Ventures, do you 

have any remaining arguments as to why Fortiss cannot compel Plaintiff to 

arbitration? Note that this question refers to agency theory, not Fortiss as a third 

party beneficiary. 

4. Please address Defendants’ contention that even if Fortiss was not an agent 

of Knighted Ventures, the Court should still allow Fortiss to compel Plaintiff to 

arbitration under the theory of equitable estoppel. See Defs.’ Reply at 3-4. 

5. Can you cite any authority (other than Cox v. ScreeningOne, Inc., 2015 WL 

413812 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 30, 2015)) for the proposition that a dispute concerning 

pre-employment activities is not covered by a stand-alone arbitration agreement 

signed as part of a pre-hire package? 

///

///

///

Case 3:15-cv-04805-TEH Document 25 Filed 01/29/16 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

For Defendants:

6. Please address Plaintiff’s contention that under the arbitration agreement,

Plaintiff could not compel Fortiss to arbitration, and thus the lack of mutuality in 

the arbitration agreement defeats Fortiss’ ability to compel Plaintiff to arbitration. 

See Pl.’s Opp’n at 9.

7. If the Court agrees that Plaintiff’s claims must be arbitrated, why should the 

Court stay the action (Defs.’ Mot. at 10), as opposed to dismissing the action? See, 

e.g,. Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 846 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988) (court has 

discretion to dismiss action in entirety rather than stay the action if all remaining 

claims asserted in the complaint must be submitted to arbitration). 

8. Please briefly respond to Plaintiff’s “Statement of Recent Decision 

Submitted as Supplemental Authority to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s 

Motion to Compel Arbitration.” (Docket No. 22.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 01/29/16 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-04805-TEH Document 25 Filed 01/29/16 Page 3 of 3