Opinion

Hale v. Brinker International, Inc.

Court
District Court, N.D. California
Filed
Aug 29, 2023
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 18.9%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMANDA HALE, Case No. 21-cv-09978-VC

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

v. COMPEL ARBITRATION AND

GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO

BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC., et STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATIONS

al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 53

Defendants.

The motion to compel arbitration is granted. The motion to strike the class allegations

from the operative complaint is granted in part.

Brinker has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Brewer signed an arbitration

agreement. On the one hand, Brewer says she does not recall ever signing an arbitration

agreement. Dkt. No. 56-1 at 2. On the other, Brinker has attached a copy of the agreement

bearing Brewer’s electronic signature and a declaration from a company human resources

official explaining that employee access to on-boarding documents is keyed to their own unique

username and password. See Dkt. No. 55 at 6–9; Dkt. No. 57-1. On this record, it is more likely

than not that Brewer signed the arbitration agreement. See Klink v. ABC Phones of North

Carolina, Inc., 2021 WL 3709167, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2021); cf. Federal Election

Commission v. Toledano, 317 F.3d 939, 950 (9th Cir. 2002).

Brewer is dismissed from this lawsuit. She has not argued that she should remain in the

case to pursue her non-individual PAGA claims—nor does it appear that she would have Article

III standing to do so. Because she must submit her individual claim to arbitration, Brewer has no

injury that this Court can redress. She cannot manufacture standing by relying on the redressable

injuries of third parties. See Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., 999 F.3d 668, 673-78 (9th

Cir. 2021).

The remaining named plaintiffs—Hale and Gomez—are not compelled to arbitrate their

claims, so they couldn’t fairly and adequately represent the interests of class members who

possibly are. See Farr v. Acima Credit LLC, 2021 WL 2826709, at *7 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2021).

But some of the putative class members signed the same unconscionable arbitration agreement as

Hale and Gomez. For these members, Hale and Gomez remain potentially viable class

representatives. So if a class is certified, it will be limited to this subset of employees.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2023 Koo.

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.