Johnson v. ConsumerInfo.com, Inc., No. 11-56520 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging that Consumerinfo had violated various California consumer protection laws. At issue was whether the court had jurisdiction to hear appeals from district court orders staying judicial proceedings and compelling arbitration of the named plaintiffs' individual claims. The court concluded that the structure of the statute suggested that Congress intended to remove appellate jurisdiction from all orders listed in 9 U.S.C. 16(b)(1)-(4), regardless of whether any such order could otherwise be deemed collateral. The history of section 16 also demonstrated that Congress intended 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) to provide the sole avenue to immediate appeal of an order staying judicial proceedings and compelling arbitration. Therefore, the courts joined its sister circuits in concluding that section 1292(b) provided the sole route for immediate appeal of an order staying proceedings and compelling arbitration. Accordingly, the court dismissed plaintiffs' appeal. Alternatively, the court denied plaintiffs' petition for mandamus where the district court's well-reasoned decision was plainly not a usurpation of judicial power or a clear abuse of discretion.
Court Description: Arbitration / Appealable Order. The panel dismissed the appeals of putative class action named plaintiffs, denied their petition for a writ of mandamus, and held that 9 U.S.C. § 16 barred the appeals from district court orders staying judicial proceedings and compelling arbitration of the named plaintiffs’ individual claims. The named plaintiffs each filed putative class actions, alleging that Consumerinfo.com, Inc. had violated various California consumer protection laws. The district court stayed the actions, compelled individual arbitration of each plaintiff’s claims, and denied the motion for 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) certification. The panel held that § 1292(b) provides the sole route for immediate appeal of an order staying proceedings and compelling arbitration. The panel further held that § 16(b) barred immediate appeal of the district court orders staying judicial proceedings and compelling arbitration, regardless of whether the orders could be deemed collateral. The panel also held that although § 16(b) did not preclude mandamus relief, the named plaintiffs did not merit the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.