Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gonzalez-Torres v. Zumper, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California

July 25, 2019

LUIS ARMANDO GONZALEZ-TORRES, Plaintiff,
v.
ZUMPER, INC., Defendant.

          ORDER RE: DKT. NO. 26

          PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         On July 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.

         BACKGROUND

         On 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 administrative motion.

         DISCUSSION

         The 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.

         Plaintiff's 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.

         A. Whether to Change Case Deadlines

         Plaintiff asks the court to stay initial case deadlines and to extend his deadline to oppose defendant's motion to compel.

         First, 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 arbitration.

         Second, 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.

         Plaintiff 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.

         B. Whether to Order Discovery

         Plaintiff 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.