Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00902/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00902-72/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: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 

FOR AN INDICATIVE RULING

----oo0oo----

Plaintiffs Hassan Turner and Luis Vazquez (collectively 

and interchangeably, “plaintiffs”) have moved for an indicative 

ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1(a). (Docket 

No. 403.) Specifically, plaintiffs request an indicative ruling 

from this court that it would reconsider its October 13, 2021,

order compelling arbitration (Docket No. 202) under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 60(b) in light of Ramirez v. Charter 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 412 Filed 08/22/24 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

Communications, 551 P.3d 520, 528, 531-32, 536-37, 540 (Cal. July 

15, 2024), in which the Supreme Court of California found several 

arbitration provisions that are similar or identical to the 

provisions in this case substantively unconscionable. 

Plaintiffs contend that Ramirez compels reconsideration 

of the court’s prior order (Docket No. 202) to further the 

interests of justice and avoid substantial reformation of the 

parties’ original employment agreements. Defendant Charter 

Communications, LLC (“defendant”) opposes the motion. The 

parties note that a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit will hear the appeal related to this matter, No. 22-

16429, on September 11, 2024. (Mot. at 6.) Defendant adds that 

“the precise issues raised by plaintiffs in their motion are 

fully briefed in their pending Ninth Circuit appeal” and that the 

panel just “ordered supplemental briefing on the issues raised by 

plaintiffs in their motion.” (Opp. at 1 (Docket No. 409) 

(capitalization altered).)

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “[i]f

a timely motion is made for relief that the court lacks authority 

to grant because of an appeal that has been docketed and is 

pending, the court may: (1) defer considering the motion; (2) 

deny the motion; or (3) state either that it would grant the 

motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose or that 

the motion raises a substantial issue.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a). 

“[T]he purpose of Rule 62.1[(a)] is to promote judicial 

efficiency and fairness by providing a mechanism for the district 

court to inform the parties and the court of appeals how it could 

rule on a motion made after the district court has been divested 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 412 Filed 08/22/24 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

of jurisdiction.” Amarin Pharms. Ir. Ltd. v. FDA,

139 F. Supp. 3d 437, 447 (D.D.C. 2015).

The court fails to see how issuing an indicative ruling

in this case would “promote judicial efficiency and fairness,”

and plaintiffs provide no persuasive reason why the court should 

do so. See id. Instead, it appears that handing down an 

indicative ruling would only throw a wrench into the appeal 

already in front of the Ninth Circuit. See, e.g., id. (denying 

Rule 62.1(a) motion in relevant part where movant requested that 

the court provide “an indicative rul[ing] on the very issue on 

appeal” (quoting Ret. Bd. of Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund 

v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 297 F.R.D. 218, 221-22 (S.D.N.Y. 2013))); 

Medgraph, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 310 F.R.D. 208, 211 & n.2

(W.D.N.Y. 2015) (declining to issue an indicative ruling 

regarding prior summary judgment in patent suit despite a recent 

Federal Circuit decision on patent infringement).

The Ninth Circuit may address Ramirez, in the first 

instance, especially considering the appellate panel ordered 

supplemental briefing on the issues it raises. However, if this 

court issued an indicative ruling on Ramirez, that would likely 

delay the previously scheduled proceedings in front of the Ninth 

Circuit. Accordingly, the court declines to issue an indicative 

ruling, and plaintiffs’ motion (Docket No. 403) is DENIED. If

the Ninth Circuit remands the case, plaintiffs will be free to 

move for reconsideration or other relief under Rule 60(b) in 

light of Ramirez, provided such relief is not precluded by the 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 412 Filed 08/22/24 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

Ninth Circuit’s remand.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2024

1 The court expresses no opinion as to how it might rule 

on such a motion under Rule 60(b). See Henson v. Fidelity Nat’l 

Fin., Inc., 943 F.3d 434, 444 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[A] change in the 

controlling law can—but does not always—provide a sufficient 

basis for granting relief under Rule 60(b)[].”).

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 412 Filed 08/22/24 Page 4 of 4