Opinion
No. 1:19-cv-03178-SMJ
11-17-2020
Maribell AGUILAR, for Herself, as a Private Attorney General, and/or on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CARTER'S INC.; and Does 1–10, inclusive, Defendants.
Che Corrington, Daniel M. Hattis, Hattis & Lukacs, Bellvue, WA, Paul Karl Lukacs, Pro Hac Vice, Hattis & Lukacs, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff. Jay T. Ramsey, Pro Hac Vice, Phillip Craig Cardon, Pro Hac Vice, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP LA, Los Angeles, CA, Robert James Guite, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant Carters Inc. Robert James Guite, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant The William Carter Company.
Che Corrington, Daniel M. Hattis, Hattis & Lukacs, Bellvue, WA, Paul Karl Lukacs, Pro Hac Vice, Hattis & Lukacs, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff.
Jay T. Ramsey, Pro Hac Vice, Phillip Craig Cardon, Pro Hac Vice, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP LA, Los Angeles, CA, Robert James Guite, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant Carters Inc.
Robert James Guite, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant The William Carter Company.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD, TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT, AND TO SCHEDULE PLEADING AND DISCOVERY DEADLINES
SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR., United States District Judge
Before the Court is Plaintiff Maribell Aguilar's Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award, to Set Aside Judgment, and to Schedule Pleading and Discovery Deadlines, ECF No. 19. The Court, having reviewed the file in this matter and being fully informed, grants in part and denies in part the motion, as described below.
BACKGROUND
On June 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed this false advertising class action in Yakima County Superior Court. See ECF No. 1-1 at 2. Defendants removed the case to this Court. ECF No. 1. This Court then ordered Plaintiff's claims to arbitration to determine the threshold issue of arbitrability. ECF No. 17. In that Order, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice and directed the Clerk's Office to enter a judgment. ECF No. 17 at 10–11. The Judgment compelled arbitration "unless the arbitrator determine[d] those provisions do not apply." ECF No. 18.
The Arbitrator concluded that "[a]ny claims by Claimant arising after August 14, 2019, are not subject to arbitration and should be referred to a court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication. ECF No. 20-4 at 2 (Arbitration Award in Case No. 01-19-0003-3692) ("Arbitration Award"). DISCUSSION
A. The Court must confirm the Arbitration Award
"Arbitration awards are not self-enforcing. Rather, they must be given force and effect by being converted to judicial orders by courts." Tube City IMS, LLC v. Anza Capital Partners LLC , 25 F. Supp. 3d 486, 488–89 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (internal quotation and citation omitted). When presented with an application to confirm an arbitration award, the district court "must grant such an order unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected." 9 U.S.C. § 9 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Court confirms the Arbitration Award, ECF No. 20-4. All of Plaintiff's individual claims arising after August 14, 2019 are not subject to arbitration and should be considered by a court with proper jurisdiction. Id. at 2.
B. The Court sets aside the judgment and allows Plaintiff to file an "amended and supplemental" complaint
The parties appear to agree —as does this Court—that, in the interest of judicial economy, the Court should permit Plaintiff to file an additional complaint in this matter. See ECF No. 19 at 15; ECF No. 21 at 8. Defendants argue that this Court need not set aside the Judgment, instead affirming the dismissal of the original complaint and allowing Plaintiff to file a supplemental complaint. See ECF No. 21 at 8. On the other hand, Plaintiffs insist that the Judgment must be set aside so that she may file an amended complaint containing individual and class claims, some of which arose before the date of the original complaint. ECF No. 19 at 14.
Defendants note that this Court could direct Plaintiff to refile this case with a new case number. See ECF No. 21 at 7.
--------
1. Relief from the Judgment
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 provides several "Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding":
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence ...;
(3) fraud ...;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The Judgment directed the Plaintiff to arbitrate her claims "unless the arbitrator determines those provisions do not apply. " ECF No. 18 (emphasis added). The Arbitration Award determined that threshold issue and thus satisfied the Judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5). Although the Court dismissed this case in order to send it to arbitration for determining the threshold issue of arbitrability, it could have stayed the case. See 9 U.S.C. § 3. The unusual circumstances in this case justify setting aside the Judgment and allowing the parties to reach the merits of the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Allowing the Judgment to stand but allowing an additional pleading in this case, as Defendants seem to suggest, would create a procedurally bizarre result. Given the arbitrability of the claims after August 14, 2019 and the interests of expediency, the Court sets aside the Judgment, ECF No. 18, and reopens this case subject to the limitations created by the Arbitration Award. 2. Filing an Additional Complaint
The parties disagree over whether Plaintiff's additional complaint should be termed a "supplemental" complaint, as Defendants argue, or an "amended" complaint, as Plaintiff suggests. See ECF No. 21 at 7; ECF No. 22 at 3. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, even where the time for amendment as a matter of course has passed, "[t]he court should freely give leave [to file an amended complaint] when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). And "[o]n motion and reasonable notice, the court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d).
As Plaintiff points out, Courts often ignore or confuse the distinction between an amended complaint and a supplemental complaint. See, e.g., Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park , 159 F.3d 374, 381 (9th Cir. 1998) ("the erroneous characterization of the corrected pleading as a ‘second amended complaint’ as opposed to a supplemental pleading is immaterial"). Nevertheless, because Plaintiff seeks to include claims that occurred both before and after she filed the original complaint on June 17, 2019, an "amended and supplemental complaint" is most appropriate in this case. See, e.g., Dells, Inc. v. Mundt , 400 F. Supp. 1293, 1295 (S.D.N.Y. 1975). While Plaintiff may not raise individual claims arising prior to August 14, 2019—and thus prior to the original complaint on June 17, 2019—she may raise class claims from before that time. Justice requires that this Court grant Plaintiff leave to file an additional complaint in this case so that the Court and the parties may consider a complete and accurate assessment of Plaintiffs remaining claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff may file an "amended and supplemental" complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), (d).
C. The Court does not decide whether any of Plaintiff's claims are precluded by the statute of limitations or the stipulated dismissal at mediation
Plaintiff argues that if this Court did not allow her to file an amended complaint, she will have to forfeit some of her individual and class claims by filing a new action. See ECF No. 19 at 14. Defendants argue that this Court should not decide, in resolving the instant motions, whether the statute of limitations bars any of Plaintiff's possible claims. See ECF No. 21 at 8. The Court agrees. The Court cannot properly determine if certain claims are barred by the statutes of limitations before Plaintiff has pleaded them. Once Plaintiff has filed her amended and supplemental complaint, Defendants may raise any affirmative defenses they deem appropriate, at which time the Court would make an informed ruling.
Likewise, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has forfeited the claims in her Complaint by stipulating to dismiss them with prejudice at arbitration. ECF No. 21-1 at 3 ("Aguilar dismisses with prejudice any and all of her individual claims against Respondents The William Carter Company and/or Carter's, Inc., which were ordered to arbitration pursuant to the Arbitration Award date June 12, 2020"). Plaintiff argues that the stipulation at arbitration do not impact the instant motion. ECF No. 22 at 9. Because Plaintiff's amended and supplemental complaint may or may not contain the claims Defendants argued she has forfeited, a ruling on that matter would also be premature. Defendants should thus raise this issue, if applicable, in an appropriate motion after Plaintiff pleads her claims.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED :
1. Plaintiff's Plaintiff Maribell Aguilar's Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award, to Set Aside Judgment, and to Schedule Pleading and Discovery Deadlines, ECF No. 19 , is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as described above.
2. The June 12, 2020 Arbitration Award, ECF No. 20-4 , is CONFIRMED.
3. The Judgment, ECF No. 18 , is SET ASIDE .
4. The Clerk's Office is directed to REOPEN this file.
5. Plaintiff shall file an amended and supplemental complaint by no later than twenty-one (21) days after the date of this Order.
6. The case will then proceed according to the schedule and deadlines set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Civil Rules, and any subsequent order of this court.