Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03190/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03190-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits

---

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

ANITA B. CARR,

Plaintiff,

v.

LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C05-3190 TEH 

ORDER RE: HEARING ON

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL ARBITRATION

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Anita Carr’s motion to compel

arbitration against Defendant Liberty Life Assurance Company (“Liberty”). The Court is in

receipt of the parties’ stipulation to continue the April 17, 2006 hearing to Monday, May 8,

2006, to accommodate Carr’s counsel’s schedule. Although it is not clear from the parties’

stipulation whether good cause exists to continue the hearing (e.g., counsel does not state

when he developed a conflict, the nature of that conflict, or whether such conflict was

unavoidable), the Court also finds no prejudice to grant a request to continue that has been

agreed upon by both parties and that does not conflict with the Court’s own calendar. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on Carr’s motion to compel

arbitration is continued to Monday, May 8, 2006, at 10:00 AM.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall be prepared to address at the

motion hearing whether Liberty was, in fact, an agent of Providian Bancorp Services

(“Providian”). The parties shall also be prepared to discuss the impact of the Ninth Circuit’s

decision in Britton v. Co-op Banking Group, 4 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 1993), which neither party

cited in their papers but which appears to present the governing rule here. Carr contends that

Liberty is bound by the arbitration clause in the employment agreement between Carr and

Providian as an agent of Providian, and the Ninth Circuit in Britton held that the “key

Case 3:05-cv-03190-TEH Document 51 Filed 04/10/06 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

question” in applying an arbitration clause to a nonsignatory agent is whether any of the

agent’s alleged wrongdoing “relate[s] to or arise[s] out of the contract containing the

arbitration clause.” Britton, 4 F.3d at 747. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 04/10/06 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:05-cv-03190-TEH Document 51 Filed 04/10/06 Page 2 of 2