Acevedo v. Russell Cellular, Inc., No. 1:2020cv01440 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING Findings and Recommendations, GRANTING Motion to Compel Arbitration and Staying Action 7 , 9 , 10 , 13 , 14 signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/19/2021. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
Acevedo v. Russell Cellular, Inc. Doc. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCO ACEVEDO, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 No. 1:20-cv-01440-NONE-SAB ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, AND STAYING ACTION v. RUSSELL CELLULAR, INC., (Doc. Nos. 7, 9, 10, 13, 14) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Marco Acevedo filed the complaint in this action on September 8, 2020, in the 18 Superior Court for the State of California, County of Kings. (Doc. No. 1-3.) His complaint 19 alleges eight claims related to employment discrimination, including retaliation and wrongful 20 termination. (Id.) On October 8, 2020, defendant Russell Cellular, Inc. removed the matter to 21 the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on the basis of diversity 22 jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 1.) 23 On October 28, 2020, defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration which was referred 24 to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 25 Rule 302. (Doc. Nos. 7, 11.) Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that another person affixed 26 his electronic signature to the arbitration agreement, meaning the agreement was not binding, 27 and that, in any event, the arbitration agreement is unenforceable as both procedurally and 28 substantively unconscionable. (Doc. No. 9.) 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 On March 16, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 2 recommending that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay these proceedings be 3 granted. (Doc. No. 14.) The magistrate judge found defendant had demonstrated, under the 4 preponderance standard of evidence, that plaintiff electronically signed the arbitration 5 agreement himself. (Id. at 13.) The magistrate judge further found that while a modest degree 6 of procedural unconscionability is present here insofar as plaintiff was unable to negotiate the 7 agreement, the agreement is not substantively unconscionable. (Id. at 14–18.) Taking both the 8 procedural and substantive unconscionability analyses together, the magistrate judge found the 9 arbitration agreement to be enforceable under the appropriate standards. (Id. at 18.) 10 The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that 11 any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. The period 12 for filing objections has passed and no objections have been filed. 13 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 14 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the 15 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 16 Accordingly, 17 1. ADOPTED IN FULL; 18 19 The findings and recommendations, filed March 16, 2021 (Doc. No. 14), are 2. Defendant’s October 28, 2020 motion to compel arbitration (Doc. No. 7), is GRANTED; 20 21 3. This matter is STAYED to allow the parties to participate in arbitration; and 22 4. The parties shall file a joint status report within one hundred eighty (180 days) 23 of the date of service of this order and every ninety (90) days thereafter notifying 24 the court of the status of arbitration. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: May 19, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28 2

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.