Fischer v. Kelly Services Global, LLC

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 YURI FISCHER, an individual, on behalf Case No.: 23-CV-1197 JLS (JLB) of himself and on behalf of all persons [12] similarly situated, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13 LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL Plaintiff, BRIEFING [14] v. 15 (ECF No. 20) KELLY SERVICES GLOBAL, LLC, a 16 limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, [17] Defendants. [18] 19 Presently before the Court are Defendant Kelly Services Global, LLC’s Motion for 20 Leave to File Supplemental Briefing (“Mot. for Leave,” ECF No. 20) and Memorandum 21 of Points and Authorities in Support thereof (“Mem.,” ECF No. 20-1). Plaintiff Yuri 22 Fischer filed an Opposition to the Motion for Leave (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 22), to which 23 Defendant submitted a Reply (“Reply,” ECF No. 23). Defendant seeks to file additional 24 briefing in support of its Motion to Compel Arbitration (“Mot. to Compel,” ECF No. 14). 25 Courts may allow the filing of supplemental briefing where a party “establish[es] 26 good cause to warrant” such briefing. Hammes Co. Healthcare, LLC v. Tri-City 27 Healthcare Dist., 801 F. Supp. 2d 1023 , 1027 n.1 (S.D. Cal. 2011). Good cause exists 28 where, for example, the briefing may make a “substantive difference” in the dispute under 1 consideration. See Chemeon Surface Tech., LLC v. Metalast Int’l, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-2942 MMD-CBC, 2019 WL 938384 , at *8 (D. Nev. Feb. 26, 2019). 3 The Parties agree on the basic outline of the incident that motivated Defendant’s 4 Motion for Leave. Plaintiff previously refused to submit his Unfair Competition Law 5 (“UCL”) claim to arbitration, prompting Defendant’s Motion to Compel. See Mem. at 2. 6 The Parties completed briefing relating to that motion on August 31, 2023. See Docket. 7 Two weeks later, and much to seemingly both Parties’ surprise, Plaintiff served Defendant 8 with a Demand for Arbitration (the “Demand”). See Mem. at 2–3; Opp’n at 1. Plaintiff 9 then withdrew the Demand. See Mem. at 3; Opp’n at 1. 10 The Parties part ways, however, over whether the Demand, and the circumstances 11 surrounding it, make a “substantive difference” in the Court’s resolution of the Motion to 12 Compel. In Defendant’s view, the Demand “expressly concede[d]” that the Arbitration 13 Agreement (“Agreement”) at issue in this case covers Plaintiff’s UCL claim. Mem. at 3. 14 And that alleged concession matters here, Defendant argues, because Plaintiff previously 15 opposed the Motion to Compel on the grounds that the Agreement “expressly excludes 16 ‘unfair competition claims.’” Id. at 2 (quoting Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. to Compel at 1, ECF 17 No. 15). In response, Plaintiff contends that Defendant “woefully overstate[s] the import” 18 of the Demand, which Plaintiff characterizes as inadvertently filed, quickly withdrawn, and 19 having no bearing on the Motion to Compel. See generally Opp’n. 20 Here, the Court finds good cause to allow for supplemental briefing. The events 21 involving the Demand occurred after the Parties briefed the Motion to Compel and 22 sufficiently relate to the issues presented therein. The Court clarifies, however, that it 23 expresses no opinion at this time on what impact that the Demand may ultimately have, or 24 not have, on the resolution of the Motion to Compel. 25 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File 26 Supplemental Briefing (ECF No. 20). Both Parties MAY FILE supplemental briefs, not 27 exceeding ten (10) pages in length, in support of their respective positions regarding the 28 Motion to Compel on or before November 20, 2023. The contents of any supplemental 1 filed pursuant to this Order shall be limited to the issues presented by □□□□□□□□□□□ 2 demand to arbitrate his UCL claim and his subsequent withdrawal thereof. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: November 6, 2023 , tt 5 ja Janis L. Sammartino ‘ United States District Judge