Sels v. Affirm, Inc.

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 10 — 11 ARDEN MARIE SELS, Case No. 24-cv-1556-BAS-MMP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER STAYING CLAIMS 13 v. AGAINST EXPERIAN PENDING ARBITRATION 14 AFFIRM, INC.; EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., — 15 — Defendants. — 16 — 17 A little over a month ago, Plaintiff Arden Marie Sels (“Plaintiff” or “Sels”) and 18 Defendant Affirm, Inc. (“Affirm”) jointly moved the Court, in accordance with 9 U.S.C. 19 § 3, to submit all of Plaintiff’s claims against Affirm to binding arbitration and to stay all 20 judicial proceedings pursuant to an arbitration agreement between Affirm and Plaintiff. 21 (ECF No. 11.) The Court granted the joint motion and ordered Plaintiff and Affirm to 22 binding arbitration. (ECF No. 12.) Accordingly, all proceedings and deadlines in this 23 action, as they related to Affirm, were stayed pending the conclusion of arbitration. 24 With the claims against one defendant compelled to arbitration, the Court was left 25 to deal with the remaining claims against the other defendant, Experian Information 26 Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”). See Jenkins v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., 2018 WL 922386 , at 27 *7 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2018) (“[I]f a court finds that the plaintiff asserts both arbitrable and 28 nonarbitrable claims, district courts have ‘discretion whether to proceed with the | ||nonarbitrable claims before or after the arbitration and [have] ... authority to stay 2 proceedings in the interest of saving time and effort for itself and litigants.’” (quoting 3 || Wilcox v. Ho-Wing Sit, 586 F. Supp. 561, 567 (N.D. Cal. 1984))); see also Leyva v. 4 || Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979) (holding that the 5 defendant “was not entitled to a stay pursuant to section 3 of the Arbitration Act” on a 6 || nonarbitrable claim, but noting that “sound reasons may exist” for the district court to stay 7 ||the action based on its inherent authority to control its docket). To help it resolve the 8 || question, the Court requested supplemental briefing from both Plaintiff and Experian as to 9 || whether the Court should stay Plaintiff's claims against Experian while Plaintiff's claims 10 |;against Affirm were in binding arbitration. The Court requested the parties submit the 11 ||supplemental briefing on or before November 27, 2024. That day has come and gone, but 12 || neither party has submitted anything to the Court, let alone the requested briefing. 13 Therefore, finding it is in the interest of judicial economy to consider all claims 14 ||stemming from the same set of facts at one time, and exercising the Court’s inherent 15 authority, Plaintiff's claims against Experian are also STAYED pending an outcome in 16 ||Sels and Affirm’s arbitration. Within fourteen (14) days of the conclusion of arbitration 17 || proceedings, Plaintiff and Experian shall either file a joint request to lift the stay or file a 18 motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against Experian. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 ) 21 DATED: December 3, 2024 (uf iw uA A (Lohan 6 22 United States District Judge — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 — 4.