`
`Mia Farber (State Bar No. 131467)
`Buck N. Haddix (State Bar No. 295334)
`JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
`725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`Telephone: (213) 689-0404
`Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
`Email: mia.farber@jacksonlewis.com
`buck.haddix@jacksonlewis.com
`Scott P. Jang (State Bar No. 260191)
`JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
`50 California Street, 9th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 394-9400
`Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
`E-mail: scott.jang@jacksonlewis.com
`Attorneys for Defendant
`APPLE INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`ANTHONY P. FOREMAN, individually, and
`on behalf of all persons similarly situated,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`APPLE, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-03902 VC
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S MOTION
`TO COMPEL ARBITRATION OF
`PLAINTIFF CONNOR SLEIGHTER’S
`CLAIMS
`October 27, 2022
`Date:
`10:00 a.m.
`Time:
`Courtroom: 4
`
`[Filed and served concurrently with
`Declarations of Scott Jang, Courtney Robles,
`and Cindi Lewis; and [Proposed] Order]
`
`July 1, 2022
`
`
`Complaint Filed:
`Amended Complaint Filed: August 31, 2022
`Trial Date:
`None Set
`
`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
`
`DEF. APPLE INC.’S MOT. TO COMPEL ARBITRATION OF
`PL. CONNOR SLEIGHTER’S CLAIMS
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-03902-VC
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03902-VC Document 32 Filed 09/16/22 Page 2 of 14
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION
`TO THE HONORABLE COURT, PLAINTIFFS, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF
`RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on October 27, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4 of
`the above-entitled Court, located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, 94102,
`Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) will move this Court for an order compelling Plaintiff Connor
`Sleighter (“Plaintiff Sleighter”) to submit his claims to binding individual arbitration and
`dismissing Sleighter’s putative class and collective action claims.1
`Apple brings this motion on the following grounds. Plaintiff Sleighter and Apple have
`executed an arbitration agreement. The agreement requires arbitration on an individual basis of
`any claim relating or arising out of Plaintiff Sleighter’s employment with Apple. As relevant
`here, the agreement is valid and enforceable, and the agreement covers the claims asserted by
`Plaintiff Sleighter in this action. Accordingly, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act and other
`pertinent federal and state law, Apple now moves this Court for an order enforcing Plaintiff
`Sleigther and Apple’s arbitration agreement. Specifically, Apple respectfully moves this Court
`to: (1) compel Plaintiff Sleighter’s claims to binding individual arbitration; and (2) dismiss
`Plaintiff Sleighter’s putative class and collective action claims.
`Apple’s motion is based on this Notice of Motion; the following Memorandum of Points
`and Authorities; the concurrently filed supporting declarations of Courtney Robles, Cindy Lewis,
`and Scott Jang; the arguments and materials presented during oral argument; and any other
`argument, evidence, or matter that the Court may properly consider.
`Dated: September 16, 2022
`
`JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
`
`By:
`
`_/s/ Scott P. Jang______________________
`Mia Farber
`Scott P. Jang
`Buck Haddix
` Attorneys for Defendant APPLE INC.
`
`1 This motion to compel arbitration does not touch upon Plaintiff Sleighter’s claims under the
`California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, as Plaintiff Sleighter has dismissed
`those claims.
`
`ii
`DEF. APPLE INC.’S MOT. TO COMPEL ARBITRATION OF
`PL. CONNOR SLEIGHTER’S CLAIMS
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-03902-VC
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03902-VC Document 32 Filed 09/16/22 Page 3 of 14
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED .................................................................. 1
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
`STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................. 1
`A.
`Plaintiff Sleighter Executed an Arbitration Agreement with Apple ........................ 1
`B.
`The Arbitration Agreement Covers the Claims in This Action and Requires
`Arbitration on an Individual Basis Only .................................................................. 2
`Plaintiff Sleighter Breached the Arbitration Agreement .......................................... 2
`C.
`LEGAL ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................... 3
`A.
`Plaintiff Sleighter Must Submit His Claims to Arbitration on an Individual
`Basis ......................................................................................................................... 3
`1.
`The FAA Governs the Arbitration Agreement............................................. 3
`2.
`The FAA Requires Enforcement of the Arbitration Agreement .................. 4
`3.
`The Putative Class and Collective Action Claims Should be
`Dismissed ..................................................................................................... 5
`The Arbitration Agreement is Not Unconscionable................................................. 6
`1.
`There is “Minimal” Procedural Unconscionability ...................................... 7
`2.
`There is No Substantive Unconscionability ................................................. 7
`3.
`Any Substantively Unconscionable Provision Can Easily Be
`Severed ......................................................................................................... 9
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 9
`
`B.
`
`iii
`DEF. APPLE INC.’S MOT. TO COMPEL ARBITRATION OF
`PL. CONNOR SLEIGHTER’S CLAIMS
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-03902-VC
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03902-VC Document 32 Filed 09/16/22 Page 4 of 14
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`
`Allied-Bruce Terminx Cos., Inc. v. Dobson,
`513 U.S. 265 (1995) ....................................................................................................................3
`
`AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion,
`563 U.S. 333 (2011) ....................................................................................................................3
`
`Chau v. EMC Corp.,
`Case No. C-13-04806-RMW, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26381 (N.D. Cal. Feb.
`28, 2014) .....................................................................................................................................8
`
`Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Systems,
`207 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................4, 5
`
`Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams,
`532 U.S. 105 (2001) ....................................................................................................................3
`
`Dean Witter Reynolds v. Byrd,
`470 U.S. 213 (1985) ................................................................................................................3, 4
`
`Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis,
`138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018) ................................................................................................................5
`
`Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela,
`139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019) ................................................................................................................5
`
`Moses H. Cone Mem. Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.,
`460 U.S. 1 (1983) ........................................................................................................................3
`
`Nicholas v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`Case No. 19-cv-08228-PJH, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126442 (N.D. Cal. July
`17, 2020) .....................................................................................................................................6
`
`Southland Corp. v. Keating,
`465 U.S. 1 (1984) ........................................................................................................................3
`
`Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp.,
`559 U.S. 662 (2010) ....................................................................................................................5
`
`California Cases
`
`Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc.,
`24 Cal. 4th 83 (2000) ..........................................................................................................7, 8, 9
`
`iv
`DEF. APPLE INC.’S MOT. TO COMPEL ARBITRATION OF
`PL. CONNOR SLEIGHTER’S CLAIMS
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-03902-VC
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03902-VC Document 32 Filed 09/16/22 Page 5 of 14
`
`Dotson v. Amgen, Inc.,
`181 Cal. App. 4th 975 (2010)..................................................................................................7, 9
`
`Mission Viejo Emergency Med. Assoc. v. Beta Healthcare Group,
`197 Cal. App. 4th 1146 (2011)....................................................................................................4
`
`Moncharsh v. Heily & Blasé,
`3 Cal. 4th 1 (1992) ......................................................................................................................4
`
`Pinnacle Museum Tower Association v. Pinnacle Market Development,
`55 Cal. 4th 223 (2012) ................................................................................................................6
`
`Serpa v. Cal. Surety Investigations, Inc.,
`215 Cal. App. 4th 695 (2013)..................................................................................................6, 7
`
`Vianna v. Doctors’ Mgmt. Co.,
`27 Cal. App. 4th 1186 (1994)......................................................................................................4
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`9 U.S.C.
`§ 2 ............................................................................................................................................2, 3
`
`Fair Labor Standards Act ..............................................................................................................2, 5
`
`Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)..........................................................................................2, 3, 4, 5, 9
`
`California Statutes
`
`Cal. Arbitration Act (CAA) ..........................................................................................................4, 9
`
`Cal. Civ. Code
`§ 1550 ..........................................................................................................................................4
`§ 1670.5 .......................................................................................................................................9
`
`Cal. Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 .................................................................1
`
`Other Authorities
`
`JAMS Rules 7 & 15 ..........................................................................................................................8
`
`JAMS Rule 17(a) and (c) ..................................................................................................................8
`
`JAMS Rule 17(b) ..............................................................................................................................8
`
`JAMS Rule 17(d) ..............................................................................................................................8
`
`JAMS Rule 24(h) ..............................................................................................................................8
`
`v
`DEF. APPLE INC.’S MOT. TO COMPEL ARBITRATION OF
`PL. CONNOR SLEIGHTER’S CLAIMS
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-03902-VC
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03902-VC Document 32 Filed 09/16/22 Page 6 of 14
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`This motion presents the question of whether the employment claims asserted by Plaintiff
`Connor Sleighter (“Plaintiff Sleighter”) in this action should be compelled to arbitration on an
`individual basis consistent with the parties’ executed arbitration agreement.2 Defendant Apple
`Inc. (“Apple”) maintains that the answer is plainly “yes.”
`II.
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiff Sleighter’s employment claims belong in binding arbitration, not before this
`Court. Plaintiff Sleighter and Apple executed an arbitration agreement whereby they agreed to
`arbitrate on an individual basis any claim related to arising out of Plaintiff Sleighter’s
`employment with Apple. The agreement is valid, enforceable, and applicable to the claims
`asserted in this case. Accordingly, Apple respectfully requests this Court enforce the agreement
`according to its terms by ordering Plaintiff Sleighter to submit his claims to individual arbitration
`and dismissing his putative class and collective action claims.3
`III.
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`A.
`Plaintiff Sleighter Executed an Arbitration Agreement with Apple
`Plaintiff Sleighter is a former Apple employee. ECF No. 26 (“Amended Complaint”). As
`part of the hiring onboarding process with Apple, Plaintiff Sleighter received various onboarding
`documents through FedEx delivery, including his offer letter and Apple’s arbitration agreement.
`(See Decl. of Courtney Robles in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (“Robles
`Decl.”) ¶ 3.) Plaintiff Sleighter had at least a week to read and consider the documents, including
`the arbitration agreement. (See id. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff Sleighter signed the arbitration agreement on
`
`2 As previously noted, this motion to compel arbitration does not touch upon Plaintiff Sleighter’s
`claims under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, as Plaintiff
`Sleighter has dismissed those claims.
`3 In 2018, Apple revised its U.S. arbitration agreement template to specifically exclude
`harassment and discrimination claims from arbitration. Apple decided this change would apply
`retroactively to employees who signed legacy Arbitration Agreements prior to 2018, such as
`Plaintiff Sleighter. Since making this change, Apple has not compelled arbitration for claims
`related to harassment or discrimination for any employee. However, as discussed herein, Plaintiff
`Sleighter’s claims in this matter are unrelated to claims of harassment or discrimination and are
`thus subject to Apple’s Arbitration Agreement.
`
`1
`DEF. APPLE INC.’S MOT. TO COMPEL ARBITRATION OF
`PL. CONNOR SLEIGHTER’S CLAIMS
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-03902-VC
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03902-VC Document 32 Filed 09/16/22 Page 7 of 14
`
`June 9, 2016 (“Arbitration Agreement”). (Id. ¶ 6, Ex. A.) Plaintiff Sleighter then used the FedEx
`return envelope provided by Apple to return the executed Arbitration Agreement and other
`onboarding documents. (See id. ¶¶ 3-5.)
`B.
`The Arbitration Agreement Covers the Claims in This Action and Requires
`Arbitration on an Individual Basis Only
`The Arbitration Agreement states that, with minor exception, Plaintiff Sleighter and Apple
`agree to arbitrate all disputes arising out of or related to Plaintiff Sleighter’s employment with
`Apple. (See Robles Decl., Ex. A § 1.) As relevant to this case, this agreement expressly includes
`any claims Plaintiff Sleighter may have against Apple under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
`California Labor Code, and the California Wage Orders. (Id. § 2.)
`Plaintiff Sleighter and Apple also agreed to arbitrate any claims on an individual basis
`only. The Arbitration Agreement includes a class and collective action waiver, which specifically
`provides, in relevant part:
`You and Apple agree to bring any dispute in arbitration on an individual basis
`only, and not on a class or collective basis on behalf of others. There will be no
`right or authority for either party to have a dispute heard or arbitrated as a class or
`collective action, or as a member in any such class or collective action.
`
`(Id. § 4.)
`Lastly, the Arbitration Agreement makes clear that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”)
`governs the agreement. (Id. § 8.)
`C.
`Plaintiff Sleighter Breached the Arbitration Agreement
`Despite agreeing to arbitrate all disputes arising out of his employment with Apple on an
`individual basis, Plaintiff Sleighter joined this action and now asserts putative class action claims
`under the California Labor Code and putative collective action claims under the Fair Labor
`Standards Act. Further, despite Apple’s efforts to meet and confer on this issue, which has
`included providing Plaintiff Sleighter a copy of the Arbitration Agreement and requesting that he
`submit his claims to arbitration on an individual basis, Plaintiff Sleighter has resisted his
`arbitration obligations. (See Decl. of Scott P. Jang in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Compel
`Arbitration (“Jang Decl.”) ¶¶ 2-3.) Accordingly, Apple now respectfully moves this Court for an
`2
`DEF. APPLE INC.’S MOT. TO COMPEL ARBITRATION OF
`PL. CONNOR SLEIGHTER’S CLAIMS
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-03902-VC
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03902-VC Document 32 Filed 09/16/22 Page 8 of 14
`
`order (1) compelling arbitration of Plaintiff Sleighter’s claims on an individual basis; and (2)
`dismissing his putative class and collective action claims.
`IV.
`LEGAL ARGUMENT
`A. Plaintiff Sleighter Must Submit His Claims to Arbitration on an Individual Basis
`1. The FAA Governs the Arbitration Agreement
`The FAA ensures enforcement of arbitration agreements in accordance with their terms.
`AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 344 (2011). The FAA provides that arbitration
`agreements “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 (emphasis added). In other words,
`the FAA compels arbitration wherever parties have written agreements to arbitrate. See Dean
`Witter Reynolds v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 218 (1985) (“[The FAA] . . . mandates that . . . the parties
`. . . proceed to arbitration on issues as to which an arbitration agreement has been signed.”)
`(emphasis added).
`By enacting the FAA, Congress placed arbitration agreements on equal footing with other
`contracts and declared a strong national policy favoring arbitration. See Concepcion, 563 U.S. at
`339; Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1, 10 (1984). Consequently, courts liberally compel
`arbitration under the FAA. See generally Moses H. Cone Mem. Hospital v. Mercury Construction
`Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983). Any doubt concerning the scope of arbitrable issues is resolved in
`favor of arbitration, “whether the problem at hand is the construction of the language itself or an
`allegation of waiver, delay, or like defense to arbitrability.” Id at 24-25. Moreover, to the extent
`that any state law or rule “stands as an obstacle” to the core purpose or objective of the FAA, it is
`preempted by the FAA. Concepcion, 563 U.S. at 352.
`To fall within the purview of the FAA, a contract must evidence a transaction “involving
`commerce.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. The threshold for satisfying this standard is low. See generally Allied-
`Bruce Terminx Cos., Inc. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, 273-77 (1995). To meet this standard, a party
`to an arbitration agreement need only show that it buys products or sells goods or services in the
`stream of interstate commerce. See, e.g., Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 109-18
`(2001) (finding arbitration agreement between an employee and employer engaged in nationwide
`3
`DEF. APPLE INC.’S MOT. TO COMPEL ARBITRATION OF
`PL. CONNOR SLEIGHTER’S CLAIMS
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-03902-VC
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03902-VC Document 32 Filed 09/16/22 Page 9 of 14
`
`retail business to be within the scope of the FAA).
`The Arbitration Agreement is governed by the FAA. To start, the Arbitration Agreement
`makes clear by its own terms that it is governed by the FAA. (Robles Decl. Ex. A § 8.) Further,
`Apple engages in transactions involving interstate commerce, as evidenced by the fact that Apple
`manufactures, markets, and sells technology products, including the well-known iPhone, iPad,
`MacBook, and iMac computers, throughout the United States. (Id. ¶ 7.) Accordingly, the FAA
`and the strong federal policy favoring arbitration applies to the Arbitration Agreement.4
`2. The FAA Requires Enforcement of the Arbitration Agreement
`In applying the FAA, the court’s role is limited; it simply determines “(1) whether a valid
`agreement to arbitrate exists and, if it does (2) whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at
`issue.” Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Systems (9th Cir. 2000) 207 F.3d 1126, 1130 (citations
`omitted). “If the response is affirmative on both counts, the [FAA] requires the court to enforce
`the arbitration in accordance with its terms.” Id. (emphasis added). The FAA leaves no room for
`discretion. See Dean Witter Reynolds, 470 U.S. at 218.
`Here, there can be no dispute that an arbitration agreement between Plaintiff Sleighter and
`Apple exists and that the agreement encompasses the claims in this action. Apple has produced a
`copy of the Arbitration Agreement, which manifests all of the essential elements of a valid
`contract: capacity to contract, consent, lawful object, and sufficient consideration. See Cal. Civ.
`Code § 1550 (listing the essential elements of a valid contract); Mission Viejo Emergency Med.
`Assoc. v. Beta Healthcare Group, 197 Cal. App. 4th 1146, 1153-54 (2011) (stating that a party
`seeking to compel arbitration makes a prima facie showing of a valid arbitration agreement by
`offering a copy of the agreement itself). Moreover, the Arbitration Agreement plainly
`
`4 Even if the FAA somehow does not apply, the Arbitration Agreement should still be liberally
`construed and enforced pursuant to the California Arbitration Act (“CAA”), Cal. Code of Civil
`Proc. § 1280, et seq. The CAA provides that a court “shall” order arbitration if the court finds
`that an arbitration agreement exists. Cal. Code of Civil Proc. § 1281.2. The California Supreme
`Court has explained that this mandatory language reflects California’s strong policy in favor of
`arbitration and courts should therefore “indulge every intendment” to give effect to arbitration.
`Moncharsh v. Heily & Blasé, 3 Cal. 4th 1, 9 (1992). Accordingly, California courts have
`consistently held that “arbitration agreements should be liberally interpreted” and that “[any]
`[d]oubts as to whether an arbitration clause applies to a particular dispute are to be resolved in
`favor of sending the parties to arbitration.” Vianna v. Doctors’ Mgmt. Co., 27 Cal. App. 4th
`1186, 1189 (1994).
`4
`DEF. APPLE INC.’S MOT. TO COMPEL ARBITRATION OF
`PL. CONNOR SLEIGHTER’S CLAIMS
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-03902-VC
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03902-VC Document 32 Filed 09/16/22 Page 10 of 14
`
`encompasses the claims in this action. The Arbitration Agreement explicitly covers all claims
`arising out of or related to Plaintiff Sleighter’s employment with Apple, including, as relevant
`here, any claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and the
`California Wage Orders. (See Robles Decl., Ex. A §§ 1-2.)
`As noted above, Apple has excluded harassment and discrimination claims from
`arbitration even with respect to Arbitration Agreements signed prior to 2018. Claims brought by
`current or former employees that are unrelated to harassment or discrimination, such as claims
`related to payment of wages or overtime – like Plaintiff’s Sleighter’s claims – are still subject to
`mandatory arbitration. Additionally, in 2018, Apple revised the Arbitration Agreement to provide
`U.S. employees a 30-day period to opt out of arbitration following the date the employee
`executed the Arbitration Agreement, although this opt-out provision was not applicable to the
`Arbitration Agreement signed by Plaintiff Sleighter.
`Accordingly, because a valid, enforceable arbitration agreement exists between Plaintiff
`Sleighter and Apple encompassing Plaintiff Sleighter’s claims in this action, the FAA requires
`this Court to submit those claims to arbitration. See Chiron, 207 F.3d at 1130.
`3. The Putative Class and Collective Action Claims Should be Dismissed
`The FAA “protects pretty absolutely” parties’ intent to “use individualized rather than
`class or collective action procedures.” Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1621 (2018).
`Not only is this because arbitration is a matter of consent, but because class (or multi-plaintiff)
`arbitration “changes the nature of arbitration to such a degree that it cannot be presumed the
`parties consented to it by simply agreeing to submit their disputes to an arbitrator.” Stolt-Nielsen
`S. A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 681, 685 (2010); see also Lamps Plus, Inc. v.
`Varela, 139 S. Ct. 1407, 1416 -17 (2019). For example, in bilateral arbitration, parties trade the
`procedural rigor of court in exchange for greater efficiency, speed, and lower costs in arbitration.
`Id. In class arbitration, however, procedural rigor gains in importance as “hundreds or . . . even
`thousands” of disputes may be resolved at once yet the purported benefits of greater efficiency,
`speed, and lower costs are “much less assured.” Id.
`
`5
`DEF. APPLE INC.’S MOT. TO COMPEL ARBITRATION OF
`PL. CONNOR SLEIGHTER’S CLAIMS
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-03902-VC
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03902-VC Document 32 Filed 09/16/22 Page 11 of 14
`
`Here, the Arbitration Agreement includes a class and collective action waiver that stresses
`that Plaintiff Sleighter and Apple agree to arbitrate any claims on an individual basis only. The
`Arbitration Agreement states, in relevant part:
`You and Apple agree to bring any dispute in arbitration on an individual basis
`only, and not on a class or collective basis on behalf of others. There will be no
`right or authority for either party to have a dispute heard or arbitrated as a class or
`collective action, or as a member in any such class or collective action.
`
`(Robles Decl. Ex. A § 4.) This class and collective action waiver is enforceable and bars Plaintiff
`Sleighter from proceeding on any putative class or collective claims, whether in this action or in
`arbitration. See, e.g., Nicholas v. Uber Techs., Inc., Case No. 19-cv-08228-PJH, 2020 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 126442, at *21-22 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2020) (finding class action waiver enforceable and
`ordering arbitration on an individual basis only). The Court should therefore dismiss Plaintiff
`Sleighter’s putative class and collective action claims.
`B.
`The Arbitration Agreement is Not Unconscionable
`The party seeking to invalidate a contract based on unconscionability carries the burden of
`proving the contract is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Pinnacle Museum
`Tower Association v. Pinnacle Market Development, 55 Cal. 4th 223, 246-47 (2012). Procedural
`unconscionability “addresses the circumstances of contract negotiation and formation, focusing
`on oppression or surprise due to unequal bargaining power.” Id. (citations omitted). Substantive
`unconscionability, in contrast, addresses the actual terms of the contract; the focus is on whether
`the terms are overly harsh or so one-sided that it shocks the conscience. Id. (citations omitted).
`Although both procedural and substantive unconscionability must be present for a contract to be
`invalidated based on unconscionability, they do not need to be present in the same degree. Serpa
`v. Cal. Surety Investigations, Inc., 215 Cal. App. 4th 695, 703 (2013). “[T]he more substantively
`oppressive the contract term, the less evidence of procedural unconscionability [that] is required .
`. . and vice versa.” Id. (citations omitted).
`Here, Plaintiff Sleighter cannot show that the Arbitration Agreement should be invalidated
`based on unconscionability. As explained below, Plaintiff Sleighter cannot prove the necessary
`quantum of both procedural and substantive unconscionability.
`6
`DEF. APPLE INC.’S MOT. TO COMPEL ARBITRATION OF
`PL. CONNOR SLEIGHTER’S CLAIMS
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-03902-VC
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03902-VC Document 32 Filed 09/16/22 Page 12 of 14
`
`1. There is “Minimal” Procedural Unconscionability
`Plaintiff Sleighter may argue that procedural unconscionability exists since the Arbitration
`Agreement was presented to him as a condition of employment and on a take-it-or-leave-it basis
`(i.e., a contract of adhesion). Even assuming this is true,5 it does not help Sleighter much because
`there is no proof that he was in any way surprised or under undue pressure or duress when he
`signed the Arbitration Agreement. Notably, the Arbitration Agreement is typed, divided by clear
`subject matter headings, and is barely three-pages long. Under these circumstances, courts have
`consistently held that the procedural unconscionability of a mandatory arbitration agreement is
`“minimal.” Dotson v. Amgen, Inc., 181 Cal. App. 4th 975, 982 (2010). Courts will therefore
`enforce such arbitration agreements unless the party challenging the agreement can prove that the
`degree of substantive unconscionability is particularly “high.” Serpa, 215 Cal. App. 4th at 704;
`Dotson, 181 Cal. App. 4th at 982.
`2. There is No Substantive Unconscionability
`Plaintiff Sleighter cannot demonstrate any substantive unconscionability, let alone high
`substantive unconscionability. In Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., 24
`Cal. 4th 83 (2000), the California Supreme Court identified six conditions that might affect the
`validity of a mandatory employment arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement should: (1)
`provide a neutral arbitrator; (2) not limit the availability of statutorily imposed remedies; (3)
`allow adequate discovery; (4) provide a written arbitration award that sets forth the key findings
`and conclusions underlying the decision; (5) not impose costs that are unique to arbitration on the
`employee; and (6) include a “modicum of bilaterality.” See id. at 103-13, 117-18. The
`Arbitration Agreement satisfies all these conditions.
`First, the Arbitration Agreement provides a neutral arbitrator. The Arbitration Agreement
`states that the arbitration proceeding shall be governed by the JAMS Employment Arbitration
`Rules and Procedures (“JAMS Rules”). (Robles Decl., Ex. A ¶ 7.) The JAMS Rules, in turn,
`provide that the arbitrator shall “be conducted by one neutral Arbitrator” and set forth a fair,
`neutral process for selecting the arbitrator through a strike and ranking process. (Jang Decl. Ex.
`
`5 Apple does not concede this point.
`7
`DEF. APPLE INC.’S MOT. TO COMPEL ARBITRATION OF
`PL. CONNOR SLEIGHTER’S CLAIMS
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-03902-VC
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03902-VC Document 32 Filed 09/16/22 Page 13 of 14
`
`1, Rules 7 & 15.) Taken together, these provisions satisfy Armendariz’s neutrality requirement.
`See Chau v. EMC Corp., Case No. C-13-04806-RMW, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26381, at *15-16
`(N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2014) (finding that arbitration agreement’s incorporation of the JAMS Rule
`regarding neutral arbitrators satisfied Armendariz).
`Second, the Arbitration Agreement does not limit the availability of statutory remedies.
`The Arbitration Agreement expressly provides that “[t]he Arbitrator must follow applicable law
`and may award only those remedies that would have applied had the dispute been heard in court.”
`(Robles Decl., Ex. A ¶ 7.)
`Third, the Arbitration Agreement allows adequate discovery. JAMS Rule 17(a) and (c)
`create a flexible and informal discovery process whereby the parties, in good faith, exchange all
`relevant information. Should a discovery dispute arise, the dispute is resolved by the arbitrator or
`a special master. (Jang Decl. Ex. 1, Rule 17(d).) Also, under JAMS Rule 17(b), the parties are
`entitled to at least one deposition, and the arbitrator has authority to grant additional