Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00902/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00902-55/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

----oo0oo----

Presently before the court is a series of motions filed 

by plaintiffs. The first is plaintiff Harper’s motion to vacate 

the court’s order compelling Harper to arbitrate his individual 

claims, to lift the stay of Harper’s individual claims, and for 

attorneys’ fees. (Docket No. 316.) The second is plaintiffs’ 

motion to lift the stay in its entirety and reconsider various 

prior orders. (Docket No. 335.) The third is Harper’s motion 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 350 Filed 12/14/23 Page 1 of 9
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

for attorneys’ fees in relation to defendant’s attempts to 

arbitrate Harper’s PAGA claim. (Docket No. 341). 

I. Procedural History

On October 10, 2021, the court stayed plaintiffs’ 

individual claims and ordered Harper, Turner, Vazquez, and 

Abascal’s claims to arbitration.1 (Docket No. 202.) Harper’s 

PAGA claims were allowed to proceed in court. (Id.) A month 

later, the court lifted the stay as to Sinclair’s claims at 

counsel’s request. (Docket No. 223.)

On January 6, 2022, the court stayed Harper’s PAGA 

claims (Claim 10) pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Viking 

River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 142 S. Ct. 1906 (2022). (Docket 

No. 261.) On March 4, 2022, plaintiffs successfully moved for 

interlocutory appeal of the court’s order compelling their 

arbitrations. (Docket No. 288.) The court accordingly stayed 

the entire case. (Id.) Plaintiffs then lost their appeal. 

(Docket No. 290.) 

On June 15, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a decision 

in Viking River Cruises. The court then lifted the stay only to 

hear parties’ arguments regarding the effect of Viking River 

Cruises and Sinclair’s then-pending class certification motion. 

(Docket No. 292.) Thereafter, the court denied defendant’s 

motion to compel arbitration of Harper’s PAGA claim. (Docket No. 

300.) Defendant filed an interlocutory appeal of that decision

(Docket No. 306), and the court in response stayed the entire 

1 Sinclair did not sign an arbitration agreement, but the 

court also stayed his claims at his counsel’s request. (See

Docket No. 202 at 24.)

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 350 Filed 12/14/23 Page 2 of 9
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

case again on September 16, 2022. (Docket No. 311.)

On January 12, 2023, the court continued the stay 

because of defendant’s still-pending appeal regarding Harper’s 

PAGA claims; Harper, Turner, Vazquez, and Abascal’s pending 

arbitrations; and Sinclair’s pending but stayed claims before the 

court. (Docket No. 323.) The January 12 stay has remained in 

effect since.

In August and September of this year, Turner and 

Vazquez’s arbitrations, respectively, concluded with final 

judgments entered. (Docket Nos. 325, 330.) Turner and Vazquez 

have appealed. (Docket Nos. 326, 331.)

On October 25, 2023, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the 

court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of 

Harper’s PAGA claim. (Docket No. 342.) 

II. Motion to Lift Stay and Reconsider Various Orders

Harper, Sinclair, and Abascal request that the court 

lift the stay of their individual, class, and PAGA claims. (Mot. 

to Lift Stay (Docket No. 335).) They also request 

reconsideration of various prior orders. (Id.) The court will 

address the requests for reconsideration first, followed by 

plaintiffs’ request to lift the stay of their claims.

A. Reconsideration of Prior Orders

Plaintiffs request that the court reconsider the 

following orders: order compelling arbitration of Harper’s and 

Abascal’s claims (Docket No. 202); order dismissing plaintiffs’ 

claims for restitution under the Labor Code (Docket No. 56); and 

order striking plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief under 

the UCL (id.).

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 350 Filed 12/14/23 Page 3 of 9
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

1. Order Compelling Arbitration for Harper and 

Abascal

Plaintiffs move for reconsideration based on a recent 

decision from the Ninth Circuit.

On September 7, 2022, the court denied defendant’s 

motion to compel arbitration of Harper’s PAGA claims. (Docket 

No. 300.) Shortly thereafter, defendant filed an interlocutory 

appeal of that order. (Docket No. 306.) On October 3, 2023, the 

Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum that affirmed the court’s 

denial, but on grounds different from the court’s. (Ninth 

Circuit Order (Docket No. 333).) The Ninth Circuit reasoned that 

the arbitration agreement’s Section P, which excludes from 

arbitration any claim already filed with a court, excludes

Harper’s PAGA claims because they were filed in court before 

Harper signed the arbitration agreement. (Id. ¶¶ 2-3.) 

Plaintiffs now request reconsideration of the court’s order 

compelling Harper and Abascal to arbitrate their non-PAGA claims

in light of this opinion.2 (Docket Nos. 162, 165, 202.)

The Ninth Circuit Order directs the court to fully 

effect the plain language of Section P. Accordingly, the court 

concludes that Section P excludes all of Harper’s claims from 

arbitration, as they all predate the effective date of the 

arbitration agreement.3 The court will therefore vacate its 

2 Defendant does not oppose reconsideration of the 

court’s order as to Harper’s non-PAGA claims. (Docket No. 339 at 

4 n.5.)

3 Harper filed his initial complaint on May 3, 2019. 

(Docket No. 1-1.) Harper signed the arbitration agreement on May 

23, 2021. (Docket No. 172-4 ¶ 5.)

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 350 Filed 12/14/23 Page 4 of 9
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

5

order compelling Harper into arbitration.4

However, the court will not reconsider its order as to 

Abascal. The court already explained why Abascal, who joined 

this action two years after he signed the arbitration agreement,

may not “piggyback” off of Harper’s initially-filed complaint 

just to avail himself of Section P. (See Docket No. 202 at 12-14

(“To allow signatories to avoid arbitration of otherwise-covered 

claims by joining suits filed by individuals not party to the 

contract would plainly frustrate th[e] intention [to require 

arbitration of claims].”).) Nothing in the Ninth Circuit Order 

disturbs this reasoning.

Plaintiffs alternatively request certification for 

immediate appeal regarding Section P’s applicability to Abascal’s 

arbitration. (Docket No. 335 at 9.) A district court may 

certify for appeal an interlocutory order if the court is “of the 

opinion that such order [1] involves a controlling question of 

law [2] as to which there is substantial ground for difference of 

opinion and that [3] an immediate appeal from the order may 

materially advance the ultimate outcome of the litigation.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1292(b). 

Defendant reports that Abascal’s arbitration is set to 

4 Harper also moves for the court to vacate its order 

compelling arbitration on separate grounds. (Docket No. 316.) 

In that motion, Harper alleges that defendant breached the 

parties’ arbitration agreement by making a late payment to the 

arbitrator. (Id.) Harper also requests attorneys’ fees as a 

sanction for defendant’s alleged failure to timely pay arbitrator 

fees. (Id.) Finally, Harper requests the court to lift the stay 

of his claims. (Id.) Because the court vacates its order 

compelling Harper to arbitrate on other grounds, the court will 

deny Harper’s motion as moot.

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 350 Filed 12/14/23 Page 5 of 9
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

6

conclude in February 2024. (Docket No. 339 at 6 n.7.) 

Thereafter, Abascal may appeal the arbitration’s verdict as 

Turner and Vazquez have already done. (Docket Nos. 326, 331.) 

Accordingly, the court will not certify this issue for immediate 

appeal because doing so would not materially affect the pace or 

ultimate outcome of this litigation.

2. Order Dismissing/Striking Relief

Plaintiffs also request the court to reconsider its 

order (Docket No. 56) dismissing their claim for restitution and

striking their request for injunctive relief under the UCL. 

(Docket No. 335.) The court declines to do so.

Plaintiffs’ request for reconsideration regarding 

restitution is premised on the California Supreme Court’s recent 

decision in Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Servs., Inc., 13 Cal. 5th 93 

(2022), which held in relevant part that premium wages are wages 

under the Labor Code. However, the court’s prior order 

explicitly stated that its disposition on whether plaintiffs may 

claim restitution for unpaid premium wages did not depend on the 

resolution of this question.5 (Docket No. 56 at 9.) 

Accordingly, the court will not reconsider its order dismissing 

plaintiffs’ claim for restitution.

Plaintiffs’ request for reconsideration regarding

injunctive relief under the UCL is also premised on a 

5 The court even recognized in its February 2020 opinion 

that the California Supreme Court had granted review in Naranjo; 

that the court would assume, without deciding, that premium wages 

are wages under the Labor Code; and that this still had no 

bearing on its ultimate conclusion that “employees have no 

ownership interest in premium wages awarded for a § 226.7 

violation . . . .” (Docket No. 56 at 9 n.1, 10.) 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 350 Filed 12/14/23 Page 6 of 9
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

7

subsequently issued opinion: Magadia v. Wal-Mart Assoc., Inc., 

999 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2021). Per Magadia, plaintiffs argue that 

a lack of Article III standing to seek “a particular form of 

relief for a particular violation does not require that the 

plaintiff’s request be stricken or dismissed.” (Docket No. 335 

at 10-11.) However, even plaintiffs acknowledge that Magadia

merely “reiterated” this principle, and they otherwise fail to 

raise any substantive change in law or fact justifying 

reconsideration of this issue. Accordingly, the court will not 

reconsider its order regarding injunctive relief.

B. Lifting Stay

Plaintiffs move to lift the stay in its entirety. 

(Docket No. 335.)

Harper. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the court’s order 

denying arbitration of Harper’s PAGA claim. (Docket Nos. 333, 

342.) In addition, pursuant to the Ninth Circuit Order, the 

court has reconsidered and vacated its order compelling Harper to 

arbitrate his individual claims. (See supra, § II.A.1.) 

Accordingly, the court no longer has a basis for staying any of

Harper’s claims, at least any basis that relates specifically to 

Harper.

Abascal. Because the court denies Abascal’s request to 

revisit the order compelling him to arbitrate his claims or 

alternatively certify the issue for immediate appeal (see supra, 

§ II.A.1), the court will continue its stay of Abascal’s claims

while arbitration continues.

Sinclair. Sinclair’s claims have been stayed since 

April 2022 (Docket No. 288), even though his claims have never 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 350 Filed 12/14/23 Page 7 of 9
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

8

been subject to arbitration (Docket No. 223).

Taking the above developments into consideration, the 

court will, in its discretionary power, lift the stay as to all 

of Harper’s and Sinclair’s claims. The court will continue the 

stay of Abascal’s claims while Abascal’s arbitration continues.

III. Harper’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees

Harper requests attorneys’ fees incurred in connection 

with defendant’s multiple attempts to compel Harper to arbitrate 

his individual and PAGA claims.6 (Docket No. 341.) Harper’s 

request also encompasses attorneys’ fees associated with this

very motion and the other motions concurrently before the court. 

(Id.)

The court will deny Harper’s motion for attorneys’ fees 

at this time without prejudice. The court has not rendered final 

judgment as to Harper, and Harper presents no compelling reasons

why the court should entertain motions for interim awards now, as 

opposed to when the court enters final judgment.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Harper’s motion to vacate 

the order compelling his arbitration and lift the stay (Docket 

No. 316) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED as moot. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to lift 

the stay and reconsider various orders (Docket No. 335) be, and 

the same hereby is, GRANTED in the following respects: (1) the 

stay (Docket No. 323) as to all of Harper’s and Sinclair’s claims 

is lifted; and (2) the court’s order compelling arbitration 

6 This is separate and apart from Harper’s request for 

attorneys’ fees as sanctions in relation to defendant’s alleged 

breach of the arbitration agreement. (Docket No. 316.) 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 350 Filed 12/14/23 Page 8 of 9
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

9

(Docket No. 202) is vacated solely as to Harper’s claims. 

Plaintiffs’ motion is otherwise DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Harper’s motion for 

attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses (Docket No. 341) be, and the 

same hereby is, DENIED without prejudice.

The parties shall submit a joint status report pursuant 

to Local Rule 240 by January 2, 2024. A status conference shall 

be held before the court on January 16, 2024 at 1:30 p.m.

Dated: December 14, 2023

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 350 Filed 12/14/23 Page 9 of 9