throbber
Case 3:22-cv-03902-VC Document 32 Filed 09/16/22 Page 1 of 14
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket