Case 3:22-cv-06857-JD Document 18 Filed 11/21/22 Page 1 of 22
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`Eric Meckley, Bar No. 168181
`eric.meckley@morganlewis.com
`Brian D. Berry, Bar No. 229893
`brian.berry@morganlewis.com
`Ashlee N. Cherry, Bar No. 312731
`ashlee.cherry@morganlewis.com
`One Market
`Spear Street Tower
`San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
`Tel:
`+1.415.442.1000
`Fax: +1.415.442.1001
`Attorneys for Defendant
`TWITTER, INC.
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`EMMANUEL CORNET, JUSTINE DE
`CAIRES, GRAE KINDEL, ALEXIS
`CAMACHO, AND JESSICA PAN, on behalf
`of themselves and all others similarly situated,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`TWITTER, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-06857-JD
`DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND
`STRIKE AND/OR DISMISS CLASS
`CLAIMS
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES
`Date:
`December 29, 2022
`Time:
`10:00 a.m.
`Judge:
`Hon. James Donato
`
`TWITTER’S MTC ARBITRATION AND
`STRIKE CLASS CLAIMS
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-06857-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-06857-JD Document 18 Filed 11/21/22 Page 2 of 22
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Thursday, December 29, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. or as
`soon thereafter as may be heard in Courtroom 11 of this Court, located at 450 Golden Gate
`Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, Defendant Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”), will and hereby
`does move this Court for an Order compelling Plaintiffs Emmanuel Cornet, Justine de Caires,
`Grae Kindel, Alexis Camacho, and Jessica Pan (collectively “Plaintiffs”) to arbitrate the claims
`alleged in this action on an individual basis and to strike and dismiss Plaintiffs’ alleged class
`action claims. Each named Plaintiff clearly and unequivocally agreed to arbitrate any
`employment-related disputes with Twitter on an individual basis only. In contravention of their
`agreements, Plaintiffs have alleged employment-related claims in a putative class action against
`Twitter. Because Plaintiffs have refused to abide by their arbitration agreements, Twitter must
`seek relief from the Court. The arbitration agreement, including its class action waiver provision,
`is valid, binding, and legally enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). 9 U.S.C. §§
`1 et seq.; Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1616, 1632 (2018). As a result, the Court
`should compel Plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims on an individual basis, and the Court should
`strike and/or dismiss their class claims.
`This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the accompanying
`Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Fidelma Callaghan and all exhibits
`attached thereto, the evidence to which the Court may take judicial notice, the record in this
`action, and any other evidence as may be presented by Twitter at or before the hearing on this
`Motion.
`
`Dated: November 21, 2022
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`
`By /s/ Eric Meckley
`Eric Meckley
`Brian D. Berry
`Ashlee N. Cherry
`Attorneys for Defendant
`TWITTER, INC.
`
`2
`
`TWITTER’S MTC ARBITRATION AND
`STRIKE CLASS CLAIMS
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-06857-JD
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-06857-JD Document 18 Filed 11/21/22 Page 3 of 22
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`B.
`C.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND ....................................................................... 1
`A.
`Plaintiffs Entered Into a Binding Dispute Resolution Agreement with
`Twitter. .................................................................................................................... 1
`The Relevant Terms of the Dispute Resolution Agreement. .................................. 3
`Despite Their Agreement to Arbitrate on an Individual Basis Only,
`Plaintiffs Filed a Putative Class Action in This Court. ........................................... 6
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 6
`A.
`The Court Must Compel Plaintiffs to Arbitration on an Individual Basis .............. 7
`1.
`The Plaintiffs Assented to the Agreement Both by Signing It and by
`Remaining Employed for 30 Days Without Opting Out. ............................ 7
`The Agreement Encompasses the Claims Alleged in the FAC. ................. 9
`2.
`The Class Action Waiver is Enforceable. ................................................. 10
`3.
`The Delegation Clause Is Enforceable ...................................................... 11
`4.
`The Agreement Is Enforceable As to All Plaintiffs. ............................................. 12
`1.
`The Agreement Is Not Procedurally Unconscionable. .............................. 13
`2.
`The Agreement Is Not Substantively Unconscionable. ............................ 14
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 15
`
`B.
`
`i
`
` TWITTER’S MTC ARBITRATION AND
`STRIKE CLASS CLAIMS
`3:22-CV-06857-JD
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-06857-JD Document 18 Filed 11/21/22 Page 4 of 22
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`24 Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Superior Court,
`66 Cal.App.4th 1199 (1998).................................................................................................... 12
`
`Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos.,
`513 U.S.115 S.Ct. 834 ............................................................................................................... 6
`
`Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest.,
`570 U.S. 228 (2013) ................................................................................................................ 10
`
`Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychare Services, Inc.,
`24 Cal. 4th 83 (2000) ............................................................................................ 12, 13, 14, 15
`
`AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion,
`563 U.S. 333 (2011) ................................................................................................................ 10
`
`Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc.,
`62 Cal. 4th 1237 (2016) .......................................................................................................... 12
`
`Beckman v. Zuffa LLC,
`No. CV215570MWFAGRX, 2021 WL 5445464 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2021) ...................... 7, 8
`
`Brennan v. Opus Bank,
`796 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................... 6
`
`Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc.,
`207 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................................... 7, 9
`
`Circuit City Stores v. Ahmed,
`283 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................. 13
`
`Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc.,
`539 U.S. 52 (2003) .................................................................................................................... 6
`
`Davis v. Nordstrom, Inc.,
`755 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................... 7
`
`Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd,
`470 U.S. 213 (1985) .................................................................................................................. 6
`
`Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Superior Court,
`211 Cal.App.3d 758 (1989) ..................................................................................................... 13
`
`Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis,
`138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018). ....................................................................................................... 6, 10
`TWITTER’S MTC ARBITRATION AND
`STRIKE CLASS CLAIMS
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-06857-JD
`
`ii
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-06857-JD Document 18 Filed 11/21/22 Page 5 of 22
`
`Espejo v. S. California Permanente Med. Grp.,
`246 Cal.App.4th 1047 (2016).................................................................................................... 7
`
`Ferguson v. Countrywide Credit Industries, Inc.,
`298 F.3d 778 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................... 12
`
`First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan,
`514 U.S. 938 (1995) ............................................................................................................ 7, 11
`
`Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.,
`500 U.S. 20 (1991) .................................................................................................................. 13
`
`Jacobson v. Snap-on Tools Company,
`No. 15-CV-02141-JD, 2015 WL 8293164 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2015) (Donato,
`J.) ............................................................................................................................................. 11
`
`Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale's, Inc.,
`755 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................. 11
`
`Jones-Mixon v. Bloomingdale's, Inc.,
`No. 14-cv-01103-JCS, 2014 WL 2736020 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2014) ..................................... 8
`
`Kim v. Tinder, Inc.,
`2018 WL 6694923 (C.D. Cal. July 12, 2018) ........................................................................... 6
`
`Kinney v. United HealthCare Servs., Inc.,
`70 Cal. App. 4th 1322 (1999).................................................................................................. 13
`
`Lacour v. Marshalls of CA, LLC,
`No. 20-CV-07641-WHO, 2021 WL 1700204 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2021) ........................ 10, 11
`
`Lang v. Skytap, Inc.,
`347 F.Supp.3d 420 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ...................................................................................... 12
`
`Lewis v. UBS Fin. Servs. Inc.,
`818 F. Supp. 2d 1161 (N.D. Cal. 2011) .................................................................................. 11
`
`Louis v. Healthsource Global Staffing, Inc.,
`No. 22-CV-02436-JD, 2022 WL 4960666 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2022) (Donato, J.) ............ 11, 12
`
`Marchese v. Shearson Hayden Stone, Inc.,
`734 F.2d 414 (9th Cir. 1984), aff’d 822 F.2d 876 (1987) ......................................................... 9
`
`Martinez v. Ross Stores, Inc.,
`No. 18-CV-04636-JD, 2019 WL 4221704 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2019) (Donato,
`J.) ............................................................................................................................................. 11
`
`Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc.,
`848 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................. 11
`
`iii
`
`TWITTER’S MTC ARBITRATION AND
`STRIKE CLASS CLAIMS
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-06857-JD
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-06857-JD Document 18 Filed 11/21/22 Page 6 of 22
`
`Momot v. Mastro,
`652 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................... 11
`
`Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Const. Corp.,
`460 U.S. 1 (1983) ...................................................................................................................... 9
`
`Nanavati v. Adecco USA, Inc.,
`99 F.Supp.3d at 1076 ................................................................................................................ 8
`
`Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC,
`55 Cal. 4th 223 (2012) ............................................................................................................ 12
`
`Rodriguez v. American Technologies,
`136 Cal.App.4th 1110 (2006).................................................................................................... 6
`
`Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Grp., Inc.,
`232 Cal.App.4th 836 (2014) ....................................................................................................... 8
`
`Smith v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.,
`No. 118CV01351LJOJLT, 2019 WL 1294443 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2019)............................... 7
`
`Tagliabue v. J.C. Penney Corp., Inc.,
`No. 1:15-CV-01443-SAB, 2015 WL 8780577 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2015) ............................... 8
`
`U.S. v. Sutcliffe,
`505 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2007) ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`United States v. Trotter,
`478 F.3d 918 (8th Cir.2007) (per curiam) ................................................................................. 6
`
`United States ex rel. Welch v. My Left Foot Children’s Therapy, LLC,
`871 F.3d 791 (9th Cir. 2017) ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`Williams v. Eaze Sols., Inc.,
`417 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (Donato, J.) .............................................................. 12
`
`Statutes
`
`9 U.S.C. § 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 4
`
`9 U.S.C. § 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 6
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 ...................................................................................................................... 6
`
`29 U.S.C. § 2101 ............................................................................................................................. 6
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1633.1 .................................................................................................................. 7
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1633.7(a) ............................................................................................................. 7
`
`iv
`
`TWITTER’S MTC ARBITRATION AND
`STRIKE CLASS CLAIMS
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-06857-JD
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-06857-JD Document 18 Filed 11/21/22 Page 7 of 22
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1633.9 .................................................................................................................. 8
`
`Cal. Lab. Code § 1400..................................................................................................................... 6
`
`California WARN Act................................................................................................................. 6, 9
`
`Declaratory Judgment Act........................................................................................................... 5, 9
`
`Federal Arbitration Act .......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Court Rules
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) ........................................................................................................................ 7
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4) ................................................................................................................... 8
`
`Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(d) .................................................................................................................... 1
`
`v
`
`TWITTER’S MTC ARBITRATION AND
`STRIKE CLASS CLAIMS
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-06857-JD
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-06857-JD Document 18 Filed 11/21/22 Page 8 of 22
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiffs Emmanuel Cornet, Justine de Caires, Grae Kindel, Alexis Camacho, and Jessica
`Pan (“Plaintiffs”) filed this putative employment class action against Defendant Twitter, Inc.
`(“Twitter”) as a preemptive strike to disrupt Twitter’s planned administration of its lawful
`November 4, 2022 reduction in force. Plaintiffs knew they had agreed to arbitrate their claims on
`an individual basis, yet purposefully chose to disregard their contractual arbitration commitments
`in order to file this lawsuit and unfairly prevent employees impacted by the reduction in force
`from having the opportunity to obtain severance benefits.1 As this Court is aware, the Federal
`Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and applicable United States Supreme Court precedent dictate that
`where, as here, a plaintiff has entered into an arbitration agreement with a class action waiver,
`their individual claims must be compelled to arbitration and the putative class claims dismissed.
`Plaintiffs cannot prosecute their claims before this Court because they agreed to binding
`arbitration, on an individual basis, as the exclusive means to resolve any employment-related
`disputes. The Court should compel Plaintiffs to arbitrate their individual claims, strike and/or
`dismiss their putative class action claims and dismiss this action in its entirety.
`
`II.
`
`RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`A.
`Plaintiffs Entered Into a Binding Dispute Resolution Agreement with Twitter.
`When Twitter offers a job to an applicant for an employment position in the United States,
`a member of Twitter’s Global People Services team prepares an offer packet in Twitter’s internal
`OWL system. Declaration of Fidelma Callaghan (“Callaghan Decl.”) ¶ 3. The offer packet
`includes the applicant’s offer letter, a separate standalone Dispute Resolution Agreement, and
`other documents. Id. Twitter sends the applicant’s offer packet to the applicant via the email
`address provided by the applicant during the application process (or their @twitter.com email
`address if the offer was made in connection with a conversion from an contractor role to an
`
`1 Along with this motion to compel arbitration, Twitter is filing its Opposition to Plaintiffs’
`“Emergency” Motion for a Protective Order. As explained more fully in Twitter’s Opposition,
`Plaintiffs’ putative class complaint is an artifice for Plaintiffs’ counsel to invoke Rule 23(d) in an
`improper effort to solicit clients in connection with Twitter’s lawful reduction in force.
`
`1
`
`TWITTER’S MTC ARBITRATION AND
`STRIKE CLASS CLAIMS
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-06857-JD
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-06857-JD Document 18 Filed 11/21/22 Page 9 of 22
`
`employee position). Id. An applicant’s offer letter explains the steps the applicant must take to
`accept the offer, which includes signing the offer letter and signing the Dispute Resolution
`Agreement (as well as other documents in the offer packet) and returning the signed documents to
`Twitter on or before the date on which the offer expires. Id. ¶ 4. While the offer letters provided
`to the Plaintiffs contained some differences in wording, the material terms were substantively the
`same. Specifically, the offer letters provided to Camacho, Kindel and De Caires stated:
`
`Dispute Resolution. We sincerely hope that no dispute will arise between us. If a
`dispute should arise, it can be resolved through the Company’s Dispute Policy. A
`copy of the Dispute Resolution Policy is enclosed with this letter.
`
`The offer letters provided to Pan and Cornet stated:
`
`Dispute Resolution. We sincerely hope that no dispute will arise between us. If a
`dispute should arise, it can be resolved through the Company’s Dispute Policy,
`unless you choose to opt-out of the same pursuant to its terms. A copy of the Dispute
`Resolution Policy is enclosed with this letter.
`The offer letters to Kindel, Camacho and De Caires stated:
`
`To indicate your acceptance of this offer, please initiate the authorization of your
`background check, and sign and date the enclosed duplicate original of this letter
`agreement, the enclosed Confidentiality Agreement, and the enclosed Dispute
`Resolution Policy and return them to [Twitter representative].
`Similarly, the offer letters to Pan and Cornet stated:
`
`To accept this offer, please initiate the authorization of your background check, and
`sign and date this offer letter, and the other documents enclosed with this letter
`(including the Confidentiality Agreement and Dispute Resolution Agreement) and
`return them via Adobesign.
`Id. ¶ 7(a)-(e); Exs. A-E.
`In the space immediately above the location where the applicant is directed to sign, the
`offer letters to Kindel, Camacho and De Caires contained the following attestation: “I have read,
`understood and accept all the provisions of this offer of employment.”2 Id. When an applicant
`receives an electronic link to an offer letter and clicks on the link, the internet-based Adobe Sign
`
`2 This sentence in the offer letters to Cornet and Pan included the additional prefatory language
`“By signing below,”.
`
`2
`
`TWITTER’S MTC ARBITRATION AND
`STRIKE CLASS CLAIMS
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-06857-JD
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-06857-JD Document 18 Filed 11/21/22 Page 10 of 22
`
`program launches and presents the applicant with the complete offer packet in PDF format.3 Id. ¶
`5. The program allows the applicant to scroll up and down to review the text of each document
`on the applicant’s computer screen; there is no time limit on this review and the applicant can
`take as long as desired to read the text of each document. Id. The program also identifies the
`portions of the documents that require an applicant’s signature or initials, and the program allows
`the applicant to apply his or her electronic signature or initials via their choice of typing, drawing,
`or taking a picture of their signature. Id. When the applicant has completed reviewing and
`signing the documents, the applicant is prompted to click a button that finalizes and applies the
`electronic signatures, which submits the entire executed packet to Twitter, and also provides a
`hyperlink to the documents for the applicant to download. Id. The Adobe Sign system also sends
`a copy of the signed offer packet to the applicant’s email address. Id. ¶ 6. When Twitter receives
`a copy of the signed offer letter and Dispute Resolution Agreement, Twitter saves the signed
`documents in the applicant’s personnel file. Id. ¶ 7(a)-(e).
`Here, each of the named Plaintiffs received an offer packet from Twitter that included
`their offer letter and the Dispute Resolution Agreement. Id., Exs. A-E. Each Plaintiff
`electronically signed their offer letter, and each Plaintiff separately signed their Dispute
`Resolution Agreement. Id. Each Plaintiff further manifested assent to the Dispute Resolution
`Agreement by remaining employed by Twitter 30 days without submitting a request to opt out of
`arbitration. Id. ¶ 8.
`
`The Relevant Terms of the Dispute Resolution Agreement.
`B.
`The named Plaintiffs signed three slightly different version of the Dispute Resolution
`Agreement (“Agreement”) – Version One (signed by Kindel 2017 and Camacho 6/2018); Version
`Two (signed by De Caires 10/2018); Version Three (signed by Pan 2019 and Cornet 2021). See
`Callaghan Decl., Exs. A-E. The operative, material terms are substantially the same.
`Specifically, the Dispute Resolution Agreement provides:
`Introductory Paragraph. Versions One and Two of the Agreement state at the top
`
`
`
`3 Adobe Sign is a type of cloud-based electronic signature application program that allows users
`to send, sign, track, and manage signature processes using a browser or mobile device.
`TWITTER’S MTC ARBITRATION AND
`3
`STRIKE CLASS CLAIMS
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-06857-JD
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-06857-JD Document 18 Filed 11/21/22 Page 11 of 22
`
`of the first page:
`
`“This Dispute Resolution Agreement is a contract and covers important issues
`relating to your rights. It is your sole responsibility to read it and understand
`it. You are free to seek assistance from independent advisors of your choice
`outside the Company or to refrain from doing so if that is your choice.”4
` Governing Law. All Versions of the Agreement expressly state that it is
`“governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq. and evidences a transaction
`involving commerce.” Id. § 1.
` Covered Claims. Versions One and Two state that it applies to “any dispute
`arising out of or related to Employee’s employment with Twitter, Inc. . . . or termination of
`employment, and survives after the employment relationship terminates. . . . [and] “also applies,
`without limitation, to disputes regarding the employment relationship . . . termination . . . and
`claims arising under . . . state statutes, if any, addressing the same or similar subject matters, and
`all other state statutory and common law claims.”5 Id.
` Commitment to Arbitrate Claims. Versions One and Two state: “Except as it
`otherwise provides, this Agreement is intended to apply to the resolution of disputes that
`otherwise would be resolved in a court of law or before a forum other than arbitration. This
`Agreement requires all such disputes to be resolved only by an arbitrator through final and
`binding arbitration and not by way of court or jury trial.”6 Id.
` Right to Opt Out. Versions One and Two explicitly state that arbitration is not a
`mandatory condition of an employee’s employment with Twitter and provide an opt-out
`procedure for employees who do not want to be bound by the terms of the Agreement.
`
`Arbitration is not a mandatory condition of Employee’s employment at the
`Company, and therefore an Employee may submit a form stating that the
`Employee wishes to opt out and not be subject to this Agreement. The Employee
`must submit a signed and dated statement on a “Dispute Resolution Agreement Opt
`Out Form” (“Form”) that can be obtained from the Company’s Human Resources
`Department at hr@twitter.com.
`
`4 Version Three contains this same statement, plus the following additional language: “You can
`choose to opt out of this Agreement – you have 30 days to opt out.”
`5 Version Three contains the additional language in the last sentence “and any other employment-
`related claim.”
`6 Version Three substitutes the phrase “covered disputes” for “such disputes.”
`TWITTER’S MTC ARBITRATION AND
`4
`STRIKE CLASS CLAIMS
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-06857-JD
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-06857-JD Document 18 Filed 11/21/22 Page 12 of 22
`
`. . .
`An Employee who timely opts out as provided in this paragraph will not be subject
`to any adverse employment action as a consequence of that decision and may pursue
`available legal remedies without regard to this Agreement. . .7
`Id., Exs. C-E, § 8 (emphasis in original); Exs. A-B, § 8 (substantively the same).
` Delegation Clause. All Versions of the Agreement contain a delegation
`clause that authorizes the arbitrator to resolve all “disputes arising out of or relating to
`[the] interpretation or application of this Agreement, including the enforceability,
`revocability or validity of the Agreement or any portion of the Agreement.”8 Id., Exs. A-
`E § 1.
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
` Class Action Waiver. All Versions of the Agreement state:
`
`You and the Company agree to bring any dispute in arbitration on an
`individual basis only, and not on a class, collective, or private attorney
`general representative action basis.9
`
`Id. § 5. All Versions also expressly provide that the enforceability of the class action
`waiver may be determined only by a “court of competent jurisdiction” and not by an
`arbitrator. Id.
` Arbitration Provider. Version One does not specify an arbitration provider.
`Versions Two and Three specify that the parties “agree to bring any claim in arbitration
`before Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (“JAMS”). Id., Exs. C-E § 5.
`
`7 Version Three substitutes hr@twitter.com for hrlegaldocs@twitter.com.
`8 Version One includes the additional statements: “Except as it otherwise provides, this
`Agreement is intended to apply to the resolution of disputes that otherwise would be resolved in a
`court of law or before a forum other than arbitration. This Agreement requires all such disputes
`to be resolved only by an arbitrator through final and binding arbitration and not by way of court
`or jury trial.”
`9 Version Three includes the additional sentence: “Employee and the Company agree that any
`arbitration will be limited to the claims between Employee and the Company individually.
`Employee acknowledges and agrees that Employee and the Company are each waiving the right
`to participate as a plaintiff or class member in any purported class action, collective action or
`representative action proceeding (“Class Action Waiver”).
`5
`
`TWITTER’S MTC ARBITRATION AND
`STRIKE CLASS CLAIMS
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-06857-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-06857-JD Document 18 Filed 11/21/22 Page 13 of 22
`
`C.
`
`Despite Their Agreement to Arbitrate on an Individual Basis Only, Plaintiffs
`Filed a Putative Class Action in This Court.
`
`On November 3, 2022, upon learning of Twitter’s planned reduction in force, Plaintiffs
`filed a complaint alleging putative class claims for violation of the federal and California WARN
`Acts and seeking relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act. ECF No. 1. On November 8, 2022,
`Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Class Action Complaint (“FAC”) alleging putative
`class claims for: (i) breach of contract; (ii) breach of contract (third-party beneficiary); (iii)
`promissory estoppel; (iv) violation of WARN Act (29 U.S.C. §§ 2101 et seq.); (v) violation of
`California WARN Act (Cal. Lab. Code § 1400 et seq.); and (vi) Declaratory Judgment Act, 28
`U.S.C. §§ 2201-02. ECF No. 6. Each of these claims arises out of and relates to Plaintiffs’
`employment with Twitter and, with the exception of Camacho, the termination thereof.
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT
`Where, as here, an arbitration agreement has an express “FAA choice-of-law” provision,
`the FAA governs the agreement. Kim v. Tinder, Inc., 2018 WL 6694923, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July
`12, 2018) (citing Brennan v. Opus Bank, 796 F.3d 1125, 1129-1131 (9th Cir. 2015)); Rodriguez v.
`American Technologies, Inc., 136 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1122 (2006). Even if the Agreement did not
`expressly incorporate the FAA, the FAA still applies because Twitter’s business plainly
`“involve[es] commerce.” See 9 U.S.C. § 2. Indeed, courts broadly construe the FAA’s use of the
`term “involving commerce” to cover any contract affecting interstate commerce to the full extent
`of Congress’s Commerce Clause power. See Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc., 539 U.S. 52, 56
`(2003) (citing Allied–Bruce Terminix Cos., 513 U.S., at 273–274, 115 S.Ct. 834. As the Ninth
`Circuit has explained, “the Internet is an instrumentality and channel of interstate commerce.”
`U.S. v. Sutcliffe, 505 F.3d 944, 952-53 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Trotter, 478 F.3d
`918, 921 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam)). The FAA plainly governs the Agreements at issue here.
`Under the FAA, an arbitration agreement “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable,
`save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C.
`§ 2. The US Supreme Court has mandated that arbitration agreements governed by the FAA
`“must be enforced as written,” subject only to generally applicable contract defenses such as
`TWITTER’S MTC ARBITRATION AND
`STRIKE CLASS CLAIMS
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-06857-JD
`
`6
`
`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
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-06857-JD Document 18 Filed 11/21/22 Page 14 of 22
`
`fraud, duress, or unconscionability. Ep