throbber
Electronically Filed
`by Superior Court of CA,
`County of Santa Clara,
`on 1/12/2022 3:01 PM
`Reviewed By: R. Walker
`Case #21CV375169
`Envelope: 8045491
`
`KOOONONUl-hwwu—t
`
`NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH
`
`OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
`COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
`
`Case N0. 21CV375 1 69
`ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL
`ARBITRATION AND STAY
`PROCEEDINGS
`
`CITIZEN POWER INITIATIVES FOR CHINA
`and DOE PLAINTIFFS 1-6, the latter
`individually and 0n behalf 0f all other similarly
`situated,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`VS.
`TENCENT AMERICA LLC and TENCENT
`INTERNATIONAL SERVICE PTE. LTD.,
`Defendants.
`
`The above-entitled matter came 0n for hearing 0n Wednesday, January 12, 2022, at 1:30
`pm. in Department 3, the Honorable Patricia M. Lucas presiding. The court reviewed and
`considered the written submissions filed by the parties and issued a tentative ruling 0n Tuesday,
`January 11, 2022. N0 party contested the tentative ruling; therefore, the court orders that the
`tentative ruling be adopted as the order 0f the court, as follows:
`INTRODUCTION
`This is a putative class action. According t0 the allegations 0f the Complaint, filed 0n
`January 8, 2021, the Doe plaintiffs in this case (collectively with Citizen Power Initiatives for
`China, “Plaintiffs”) are users 0f an app called WeChat. (Complaint, W 14-19.) WeChat is a
`
`I.
`
`ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS
`
`1
`
`

`

`Tencent International Service Pte. Ltd. (collectively, “Defendants”). (/d. at 1.) Plaintiffs alleg
`
`that WeChatholds an effective monopoly on how “the world that speaks Chinese” communicate
`
`with each other electronically. (/bid.)
`
`Plaintiffs state that this case arises from Defendants’ practice of turning over private user
`
`data and communications from California WeChat users to the government of the People’s
`
`Republic of China. (Complaint, 2.) Plaintiffs also challenge provisions in Defendants’ terms
`
`—oOFeYNNHNAFFWONY messaging-and-payments mobile application offered by defendants Tencent America LLC and
`
`of service and privacy policy. (d. at { 3.)
`
`The Complaint sets forth the following causes of action:
`
`(1) Declaratory and injunctive
`
`relief that certain practices and contractual provisions are unlawful and unenforceable;
`
`(2) Violations of the California constitutional right to privacy; (3) Violations of the California
`
`constitutional right to free speech; (4) Violations of the California constitutional right to equal
`
`protection; (5) Intrusion on seclusion; (6) Conversion andtrespass to chattels; (7) Intentional
`
`infliction of emotional distress; (8) Negligence; (9) Unjust enrichment; (10) Violations of the
`
`California Unfair Competition Law; and (11) Violations of the California Invasion of Privacy
`
`Act.
`
`On May 19, 2021, Defendants filed a petition to compel arbitration before the American
`
`Arbitration Association (“AAA”) under the Federal Arbitration Act and California law.
`
`Plaintiffs opposed the motion. Forthe first time in reply, Defendants argued that the court
`
`should compelarbitration either in California under California law and pursuant to the AAA
`
`procedures or in Hong Kong under Hong Konglaw and pursuant to the Hong Kong International
`
`Arbitration Centre Administered Arbitration Rules.
`
`The petition was originally set for hearing on July 21, 2021. At that time, the court asked
`
`for supplemental briefing from the parties regarding the issue of whetheran arbitrator, rather
`
`than the court, should resolve arbitrability questions.
`
`The matter then proceeded to hearing on August 25, 2021. The court subsequently took
`
`the matter under submission. On September 14, 2021, while the matter wasstill under
`
`submission and without seeking leave of court, Defendants filed a “Notice of Supplemental
`
`2
`ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS
`
`

`

`Ltd.’s Petition to Compel Arbitration and Stay Further Proceedings,” presenting additional
`
`argument in support of Defendants’ petition. The court then vacated the submission and allowed
`
`Plaintiffs five days to file a response.
`
`On September 30, 2021, the court entered an order denying Defendants’ petition to
`
`—oOFeYNNHNAFFWONY Authority in Support of Defendants Tencent America LLC and Tencent International ServePte.
`
`compel arbitration. The court held that the delegation clause did not clearly and unmistakably
`
`delegate gateway questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator and therefore the court would decide
`
`whether Plaintiffs could be compelled to arbitration. The court then determined that, as a matter
`
`of due process, there was no request properly before the court to compelarbitration in Hong
`
`Kong under Hong Kong law and pursuant to the Hong KongInternational Arbitration Centre
`
`Administered Arbitration Rules. Consequently, the court considered the petition only with
`
`respect to the request for arbitration under the AAA rules. Finally, the court held that Plaintiffs
`
`did not assent to the relevant arbitration clause.
`
`On October 27, 2021, Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal of the court order denying
`
`their petition to compelarbitration. That appeal (Sixth District Court of Appeal Case No.
`
`H049519) is still pending.
`
`That same day, Defendants filed the matter currently before the court: a second petition
`
`to compel arbitration, seeking to compel arbitration in Hong Kongandto stay proceedingsin this
`
`court. Plaintiffs oppose the petition.
`
`I.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Asa threshold matter, the court addresses the effect on this proceeding ofthe filing of the
`
`Notice of Appeal.
`
`Code of Civil Procedure section 916, subdivision (a) stays all further trial court
`
`proceedings “upon the matters embraced” in or “affected” by the appeal. (Varian Medical
`
`Systems, Inc. vy. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 189 (Varian).)
`
`In determining whether a proceeding is embraced in or affected by the appeal,
`
`[courts] must consider the appeal andits possible outcomesinrelation to the
`
`proceeding andits possible results. “[W]hether a matter is ‘embraced’ in or
`
`3
`ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS
`
`

`

`—oOFeYNNHNAFFWONY
`
`‘affected’ by a judgment[or order] within the meaning of[section 916] depends
`
`on whether postjudgment [or postorder] proceedings on the matter would have
`
`any effect on the ‘effectiveness’ of the appeal.” [Citation.] “If so, the
`
`proceedingsare stayed; if not, the proceedings are permitted.” [Citation.]
`
`(Varian, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 189.)
`
`[A] proceeding affects the effectiveness of the appeal if the very purpose of the
`
`appealis to avoid the need for that proceeding. In that situation, the proceeding
`
`itself is inherently inconsistent with a possible outcome on appeal and must
`
`therefore be stayed under section 916, subdivision (a). Thus, an appeal from the
`
`denial of a motion to compelarbitration automatically stays all furthertrial court
`
`proceedings on the merits. [Citation.]
`
`(Varian, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 190, citing Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. v. Superior Court
`
`(1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 924, 925-926 [“Bache appealed the order denying arbitration. That
`
`appeal affects the entire case. Thus, further trial court proceedings are stayed under Code of
`
`Civil Procedure section 916.” (Emphasis added.)]; Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital v. Blue Cross
`
`of California (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 677, 683, fn. 4 [“[A]fter Blue Crossfiled its notice of appea
`
`from the denial of its petition to compel arbitration, there was a mandatory stay ofall
`
`proceedings (Code Civ. Proc., § 916) that the trial court refused to lift and thereafter enforced
`
`when Coast Plaza attempted to continue pursuit of third party discovery efforts despite the
`
`stay.”] (Emphasis added).)
`
`Here, Defendant’s appeal of the September 30, 2021 order denying their petition to
`
`compel arbitration affects the entire case. A possible result of the appealis that Plaintiffs are
`
`ordered to arbitrate the dispute in California under California law and pursuant to the AAA
`
`procedures: a result irreconcilable with the order sought on the current petition which would
`
`require Plaintiffs to arbitrate in Hong Kong under Hong Kong law and pursuant to the Hong
`
`Kong International Arbitration Centre Administered Arbitration Rules. Moreover, the purpose
`
`of the appeal is to avoid the need for further proceedingsin the trial court. The petition to
`
`compel arbitration currently before the court is hardly an ancillary or collateral matter. The
`
`4
`ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS
`
`

`

`proceeding itself is inherently inconsistent with a possible outcome 0n appeal. Accordingly,
`because it violates the stay imposed by Virtue 0f Defendants’ notice 0f appeal, Defendants’
`second petition t0 compel arbitration is ordered OFF CALENDAR.
`
`KOOONONUl-hwwu—t
`
`Dated: January 12, 2022
`
`Patricia M. Lucas
`Judge 0f the Superior Court
`
`NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH
`
`OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONm-PWNHO
`
`5
`ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS
`
`

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