Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01274/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01274-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441pr Petition for Removal

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTIN NAZARIAN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15cv1274-LAB (JMA)

ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION TO

STAY; AND

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

COMPEL ARBITRATION; AND

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.

ADECCO USA, INC.,

Defendant.

The procedural history of this case is unusually complex. It was filed as a putative

class action in state court, and removed under the Class Action Fairness Act. Defendant

Adecco USA then moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss the action without prejudice

as to the putative class members. (Docket no. 8.) Plaintiff Artin Nazarian then filed a related

case arising from the same nucleus of operative facts in state court. In this case, he then

filed a response conceding that his own claims are arbitrable, and that dismissal of the

putative class members' claims without prejudice was proper. (Docket no. 10.) But in his

response, he argued that his claims in the other pending action were not subject to

arbitration. The parties then filed a joint motion to stay this action pending resolution of the

case in state court. (Docket no. 13.)

Adecco then removed the other action to this Court. It was docketed as 15cv2148,

Nazarian v. Adecco, deemed related to this case, and transferred to the undersigned judge

- 1 - 15cv124

Case 3:15-cv-01274-LAB-JMA Document 14 Filed 03/15/16 Page 1 of 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

as provided under local rules. In the joint motion to stay, the parties noted Adecco's

argument that case 15cv2148 should be tried together with this case. While the joint motion

raised nebulous concerns about jurisdictional issues in 15cv2148 and suggested that the

issue be briefed, Nazarian did not file a motion for remand.

It has therefore fallen to the Court in the other case to raise the issue of jurisdiction

and possible remand sua sponte. Concurrently with this order, the Court is issuing an order

to show cause re: remand in case 15cv2148. 

In this case, however, because the parties agree Nazarian's claims are subject to

mandatory arbitration, it is clear he cannot continue to litigate them. Because Nazarian's

claims are arbitrable, the putative class members' claims probably are as well, although the

Court need not and does not decide this issue. In any event, he has not sought further relief

on a classwide basis, and he does not seek to continue his role as class representative — at

least, not as to the claims in this case. No other potential representative has been proposed

to replace Nazarian, and no class has been certified. Dismissal without prejudice would not

bind the unnamed class members, and is therefore appropriate. CompareBotelho v. Hawaii,

2015 WL 2088877, at *3 (D. Haw. Feb. 25, 2010) (citing Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393

(1975)) (holding that if class representative's claim becomes moot before a class is certified,

the case should generally be dismissed).

In view of the developments of this and the related case, the joint motion to stay

(Docket no. 13) is DENIED AS MOOT. The unopposed motion to compel arbitration and to

dismiss without prejudice the class claims (Docket no. 8) is GRANTED. Nazarian is

ORDERED to arbitrate his claims on an individual basis only. The classwide and

representative claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The action as a whole is

also DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 15, 2016

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 15cv124

Case 3:15-cv-01274-LAB-JMA Document 14 Filed 03/15/16 Page 2 of 2