Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00697/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00697-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 05:704 Labor Litigation

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOMINIC COBARRUVIAZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MAPLEBEAR, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-15-0697 EMC

ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

(Docket No. 29)

On August 20, 2015, the Court heard oral argument on Defendant’s currently pending

motion to compel Plaintiffs’ claims to arbitration. Docket No. 29. For the reasons stated on the

record at the hearing, the Court concludes that a threshold inquiry in this case is whether JAMS will

accept an arbitration demand in this case, and conduct an arbitration under the identical Independent

Contractor Agreements that govern the relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendant. See, e.g.,

Docket No. 30, Ex. A (Agreement). 

The relevant agreements here provide that any arbitration “shall be administered by JAMS at

its office located at Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1500, San Francisco, CA 94111, pursuant to its

Employment Arbitration Rules and Procedures and subject to JAMS Policy on Employment

Arbitration Minimum Standards of Procedural Fairness (collectively, ‘Rules’) that are in effect when

arbitration is demanded.” Agreement at § 7.2. Plaintiffs have argued that the selected arbitral forum

is unavailable because the Agreement contains terms that conflict with the JAMS Rules, the

Agreement states that in the event of a conflict with JAMS Rules, the terms of the Agreement

prevail, and that JAMS’s Rules provide that an “arbitration demand will not be accepted unless there

Case 3:15-cv-00697-EMC Document 76 Filed 08/21/15 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

is full compliance with” JAMS’s Rules and standards. See, e.g., Agreement, Ex. B (JAMS

Minimum Standards) at Standard No. 8. 

The Court hereby ORDERS Defendant to file an arbitration demand with JAMS covering

the instant dispute for the sole purpose of obtaining a determination from JAMS whether it will

accept such arbitration demand. No such arbitration may actually be conducted, however, nor shall

JAMS make any dispositive adjudication regarding the scope and enforceability of the delegation

clause contained in the Agreements, nor otherwise adjudicate whether this dispute is properly

arbitrable or terms of the Agreement unconscionable, until this Court, if necessary, first resolves the

delegation issue. See Rent-a-Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 70 (court must decide scope

of delegation clause to determine whether issues such as unconscionability are to be decided by

court or arbitrator). The instant motion to compel arbitration remains subject to this Court’s

jurisdiction and will remain under submission. Defendant shall file its arbitration demand within

five (5) days of the date of this Order.

The parties are ORDERED to file a status report concerning JAMS’s determination in

advance of the next Case Management Conference, which is hereby set to occur on October 1, 2015,

at 10:30 a.m. If the parties receive a determination from JAMS more than one week before the

scheduled CMC date, they shall file a joint status report with the Court within three (3) days of date

JAMS’s determination is received.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 21, 2015

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00697-EMC Document 76 Filed 08/21/15 Page 2 of 2