Overview

An employee’s motion for class certification was denied where although the elements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) were met, there was insufficient risk of inconsistency or prejudice to justify certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1). The employee did not meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) where she failed to show that common questions regarding the purported class members’ experiences regarding meal and rest breaks predominated.

Outcome

Motion denied.

Procedural Posture

Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin defendant from terminating its services while the parties resolved a billing dispute an already filed arbitration. An EEOC lawyer represented respondent.

Overview

In the Central District of California, plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin defendant from terminating service during the period in which the parties would be resolving a billing dispute in an arbitration already filed with the American Arbitration Association and pending in Kansas City, Missouri. By the terms of an agreement between one plaintiff and defendant, that plaintiff and defendant agreed to resolve by arbitration any dispute arising out of or relating to the agreement. The contract designated Kansas City as the location of arbitration proceedings, and a choice of law provision stated that the contract was governed by Kansas law. The court held plaintiffs applied to the wrong court for injunctive relief pending arbitration. The weight of authority held that the proper venue for bringing an action seeking injunctive relief pending arbitration lay in the district where the arbitration proceedings were occurring.

Outcome

The court held that plaintiffs applied to a court in the wrong district for injunctive relief pending arbitration. Proper venue for bringing an action for and injunction pending arbitration was in the district were the arbitration proceedings were occurring.