throbber
Case 3:22-cv-03902-VC Document 44 Filed 11/22/22 Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`ANTHONY P. FOREMAN, et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 22-cv-03902-VC
`
`
`ORDER COMPELLING
`ARBITRATION AS TO PLAINTIFF
`SLEIGHTER
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 32
`
`Connor Sleighter agreed to arbitrate “[a]ll disputes related in any manner to [his]
`
`employment relationship” with Apple. Dkt. No. 32-5 at 2. He now makes various arguments why
`
`he should not be compelled to arbitrate his wage claims. Those arguments are meritless.
`
`
`
`Sleighter’s primary argument is that his arbitration agreement contained an opt-out
`
`provision, and that he is now opting out of it. His evidence for this provision is not any text in the
`
`agreement, or any contemporaneous document or statement, but rather testimony that an Apple
`
`executive gave to Congress three years later. The executive claimed that Apple began including
`
`an opt-out provision “starting in June 2016.” Dkt. No. 35-2 at 15. Sleighter signed his arbitration
`
`agreement early in June 2016, but no such provision is to be found. Dkt. No. 32-5 at 4.
`
`Presumably Apple changed its standard arbitration agreement later in the month. Or perhaps the
`
`Apple executive’s testimony was inaccurate or imprecise. What one cannot conclude from the
`
`testimony, though, is that Sleighter’s agreement contained a secret opt-out provision. That idea is
`
`fantastical. The same goes for the argument that the agreement does not “exist” because it does
`
`not contain such a provision. Dkt. No. 35 at 10.
`
`
`
`Sleighter’s backup argument is that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable. But this
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03902-VC Document 44 Filed 11/22/22 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`theory reprises the absurd idea of an undisclosed opt-out provision. Sleighter says the
`
`unconscionability “derives primarily” from the absence of this “required” clause—which is to
`
`say his unconscionability argument is “primarily” fantasy. Id. at 13. In terms of substantive
`
`unconscionability, he states that the cost of arbitration would exceed the cost of filing a
`
`complaint in court. He never elaborates on this assertion, perhaps because it doesn’t seem to be
`
`true. Instead, he turns to a provision that apportions arbitration fees “in accordance with
`
`applicable law.” Id. It’s hard to fathom how following applicable law could be substantive
`
`unconscionability.
`
`
`
`Sleighter’s claims are compelled to arbitration. Since there is no other named plaintiff for
`
`the class action claims, those claims are dismissed. The FLSA collective action will go forward
`
`on the schedule previously set. Dkt. No. 40. As this litigation continues, counsel for the plaintiffs
`
`must be mindful of their Rule 11 obligation not to make frivolous contentions.
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: November 22, 2022
`
`
`
`______________________________________
`VINCE CHHABRIA
`United States District Judge
`
`2
`
`

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