Opinion
3:20-cv-2228-L-BGS
07-01-2021
VALERIE DENSON, Plaintiff, v. KEPLR VISION, LLC, et al., Defendants,
ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL (DOC. NO. 20)
Hon. M. James Lorenz, United States District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. (Doc. No. 20). Plaintiff opposed, and Defendants replied. (Doc. Nos. 25 and 26).
In the opposition, Plaintiff argues the arbitration agreement at issue (Doc. No. 20, Exhibit 1 at 1-5) is unconscionable. (Doc. No. 25 at 10). Plaintiff relies, in part, on her right to attorneys' fees. (Id. at 11) (citing cases on fee-shifting). In response, Defendants cite a clause from the agreement that authorizes the arbitrator to award a prevailing party reasonable attorneys' fees. (Doc. No. 26 at 9) (“the arbitrator may award the prevailing party his or her expenses and fees of arbitration, including reasonable attorney fees.”)
The Court finds supplemental briefing is warranted on the above clause. The Court therefore orders the parties to brief whether the above clause is substantively unconscionable. See Pokorny v. Quixtar, Inc., 601 F.3d 987, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (“we agree that because the fee-shifting clause puts [the party] who demands arbitration at risk of incurring greater costs than they would bear if they were to litigate their claims in federal court, the district court properly held that the clause is substantively unconscionable.”); Wherry v. Award, Inc., 192 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1249 (2011) (although an arbitration agreement did not require the arbitrator to award costs against plaintiffs if they were unsuccessful, it authorized the arbitrator to impose them). The parties shall also address whether the clause - if unconscionable - is severable.
Plaintiff shall file her supplemental brief on (or before) July 9, 2021. Defendants shall file their brief on (or before) July 16, 2021. The briefs are limited to five pages each.
IT IS SO ORDERED.