United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER RE: DKT. NO. 26
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
1, 2019, plaintiff Luis Armando Gonzalez-Torres filed an
administrative motion to order discovery, stay initial case
deadlines, and extend his deadline to file an opposition to
defendant's motion to compel arbitration. Dkt. 26.
Defendant Zumper, Inc. (“Zumper”) filed an
opposition on July 5, 2019. Having read the papers filed by
the parties and carefully considered their arguments and the
relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court
hereby rules as follows.
April 23, 2019, Gonzalez-Torres filed a class-action
complaint against Zumper, stating seven causes of action.
Compl., Dkt. 1. Zumper operates a website that enables
prospective renters to apply for apartment rentals, and
landlords to evaluate prospective tenants. Plaintiff used the
website as a prospective renter looking for an apartment. In
brief, plaintiff alleges that he submitted a rental
application using Zumper, and thereafter Zumper published a
report that erroneously associated him with criminal offenses
of another individual. Compl. ¶¶ 34-38, 40-43.
Gonzalez-Torres alleges that his rental applications were
denied, the inaccuracy was a “substantial factor”
in the denial, and Zumper did not adequately respond when
plaintiff disputed the report. Id. ¶¶
46-48, 57. On June 17, 2019, Zumper filed a motion to compel
arbitration. Dkt. 24. Zumper argues that plaintiff and Zumper
entered into an arbitration agreement when plaintiff created
his Zumper account. Plaintiff then filed the present
Local Rules allow motions for administrative relief
concerning “matters such as motions to exceed otherwise
applicable page limitations or motions to file documents
under seal, for example.” Civ. L.R. 7-11.
motion raises two issues: (1) whether to extend
plaintiff's deadline to file an opposition to
defendant's motion to compel and stay other case
deadlines; and (2) whether to order discovery before hearing
the motion to compel.
Whether to Change Case Deadlines
asks the court to stay initial case deadlines and to extend
his deadline to oppose defendant's motion to compel.
plaintiff asks the court to stay the deadlines to exchange
Rule 26(a) initial disclosures, meet and confer on discovery
issues, file a Rule 26(f) report, file a Case Management
Statement, and conduct the Case Management Conference. Dkt.
26 at 2- 3. He asks that those deadlines be rescheduled only
after the court's ruling on Zumper's motion to compel
arbitration. Defendant does not oppose this request, and the
court finds the request reasonable given the pending motion
to compel arbitration. As such, the above-listed deadlines
are STAYED, and will be rescheduled as necessary following
this court's order on defendant's motion to compel
plaintiff asks the court to extend his deadline to oppose
defendant's motion to compel arbitration. If the court
does not grant discovery, plaintiff seeks an August 15, 2019
deadline. Defendant “does not object to a reasonable
extension of time for Gonzalez-Torres to prepare an
opposition brief on any legal issues.” Dkt. 29 at 5.
Defendant proposes an extension limited to one week from the
publication of this order.
shall file his opposition to defendant's motion to compel
arbitration, if any, on or before August 14, 2019.
Defendant's reply brief, if any, shall be filed within
seven days of plaintiff's opposition. The hearing on the
motion is hereby RESCHEDULED to August 28, 2019.
Whether to Order Discovery
includes a request for discovery in his administrative
motion. Plaintiff makes two arguments to support the request.
First, he does not recall being presented with the
arbitration agreement and wants discovery to determine
whether a contract containing an arbitration agreement was
ever formed between the parties. Second, he wants discovery
to help him explore ...