From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Luckert v. Tesla Energy Operations, Inc.

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Aug 5, 2021
21-cv-03027-VC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2021)

Opinion

21-cv-03027-VC

08-05-2021

ANTHONY W. LUCKERT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TESLA ENERGY OPERATIONS, INC., et al., Defendants.


Re: Dkt. No. 22

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

VINCE CHHABRIA, United States District Judge.

Tesla's motion to compel arbitration is granted. The Power Purchase Agreement entered into by the Luckerts and Tesla incorporates the JAMS Streamlined Arbitration Rules into its arbitration provision. The applicable rule provides: “Jurisdictional and arbitrability disputes, including disputes over the formation, existence, validity, interpretation or scope of the agreement under which Arbitration is sought…shall be submitted to and ruled on by the Arbitrator.” That type of language has been held to “clearly and unmistakably” delegate the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator under Brennan v. Opus Bank, 796 F.3d 1125, 1128 (9th Cir. 2015); see Oracle America, Inc. v. Myriad Group A.G., 724 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2013); Rohm Semiconductor USA, LLC v. MaxPower Semiconductor, Inc., No. 20-cv-06686-VC, 2021 WL 822932 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2021); Caviani v. Mentor Graphics Corp., No. 19-CV-01645-EMC, 2019 WL 4470820 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2019). Tesla's motion is thus granted, and the case is dismissed without prejudice. See Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale's, Inc., 755 F.3d 1072, 1073-74 (9th Cir. 2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Luckert v. Tesla Energy Operations, Inc.

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Aug 5, 2021
21-cv-03027-VC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2021)
Case details for

Luckert v. Tesla Energy Operations, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY W. LUCKERT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TESLA ENERGY OPERATIONS, INC.…

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Aug 5, 2021

Citations

21-cv-03027-VC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2021)

Citing Cases

Flora v. Prisma Labs.

(“[O]ur holding does not foreclose the possibility that this rule could also apply to unsophisticated parties…