Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00902/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00902-33/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

LIONEL HARPER, DANIEL SINCLAIR, 

HASSAN TURNER, LUIS VAZQUEZ, and 

PEDRO ABASCAL, individually and 

on behalf of all others 

similarly situated and all 

aggrieved employees,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,

Defendant.

No. 2:19-cv-00902 WBS DMC

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF DANIEL 

SINCLAIR’S MOTION TO LIFT THE 

STAY OF HIS CLAIMS

----oo0oo----

Plaintiffs Lionel Harper, Daniel Sinclair, Hassan 

Turner, Luis Vazquez, and Pedro Abascal (“plaintiffs”) brought 

this putative class action against their former employer, Charter 

Communications, alleging various violations of the California 

Labor Code. On October 13, 2021, the court granted Charter’s 

motions to compel arbitration of plaintiff Turner, Vazquez, and 

Abascal’s claims, and to compel arbitration of plaintiff Harper’s 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 223 Filed 11/30/21 Page 1 of 4
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

claims save for his PAGA claim. (See Docket No. 202.) In that 

order, the court also issued a temporary stay of plaintiff 

Sinclair’s claims pending arbitration of the other plaintiffs’ 

claims. (See id.)

In the instant motion, Sinclair argues that, because in 

its order the court resolved issues regarding arbitrability of 

the other plaintiffs’ claims itself rather than delegating them 

to an arbitrator, there no longer exists a reason to delay 

consideration of his claims or a motion for class certification. 

(See Mot. at 6 (Docket No. 211).) He states that during oral 

argument on October 4, 2021, his counsel only expressed desire 

for a stay for long enough for Sinclair to determine whether to 

proceed without the other plaintiffs as proposed class 

representatives and that, because those plaintiffs are 

arbitrating their claims, he seeks to proceed with the action and 

present a renewed motion for class certification. (See id.) He 

also notes that, because he did not sign an arbitration 

agreement, unlike the other plaintiffs, section 3 of the Federal 

Arbitration Act does not provide alternative grounds to stay his 

claims pending arbitration of the other plaintiffs’ claims. (See

id. at 8-9.)

As part of its inherent power to control its docket, 

the court may stay an action at its discretion, based upon the 

circumstances of the case before it. See Nken v. Holder, 556 

U.S. 418, 433-34 (2009); Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-

55 (1936). By the same token, “[t]he same court that imposes a 

stay of litigation has the inherent power and discretion to lift 

the stay.” CE Res., Inc. v. Elite Cont’g Educ., Inc., 2:15-cvCase 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 223 Filed 11/30/21 Page 2 of 4
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

01908 WBS AC, 2016 WL 3653446, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 6, 2016) 

(quoting Digit. Software Servs., Inc. v. Ent. Programs, Inc., 

2:09-cv-02763 TLN DAD, 2014 WL 5816929, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 

2014)). “The court may lift the stay ‘[w]hen circumstances have 

changed such that the court’s reasons for imposing the stay no 

longer exist or are inappropriate.’” Id. (alteration in 

original). In general, district courts have “broad discretion” 

to control their dockets through use of stays. See Clinton v. 

Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 683 (1997).

The court stayed plaintiff Sinclair’s claims at his 

counsel’s request. (See Docket No. 202 at 24.) Sinclair’s 

subsequent request that the court lift the stay thus represents a 

change of “circumstances . . . such that the court’s reasons for 

imposing the stay no longer exist,” CE Res., Inc., 2014 WL 

3653446, at *1, contrary to Charter’s contentions, (see Opp. to 

Mot. at 8 (Docket No. 215)). For this reason, and because, “when 

feasible, it is preferable to proceed with litigation of . . . 

nonarbitrable claims,” JNK Ent. v. SP Sales & Ent., 15-cv-01908 

RGK (FFMx), 2015 WL 13283845, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2015) 

(citation omitted), the court will grant Sinclair’s motion to 

lift the stay.

It is therefore HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff 

Sinclair’s motion to lift the stay of his claims be, and the same 

hereby is, GRANTED.

The parties are hereby directed to stipulate to a 

briefing schedule and hearing date for Sinclair’s renewed motion 

for class certification.

///

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 223 Filed 11/30/21 Page 3 of 4
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

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2021

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 223 Filed 11/30/21 Page 4 of 4