Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 9, 2024

Chakraborty v. Hexaware Technologies, Inc.

Judge
Vince Chhabria
Docket
3:24-cv-03458
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
ArbitrationCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Chakraborty v. Hexaware, Judge Chhabria granted arbitration and stayed the case because the parties delegated arbitrability issues to the arbitrator.

Who this affects

Aparoop Chakraborty and Hexaware Technologies, Inc.; the dispute will proceed in arbitration rather than in court while this case is stayed.

What happened

In Chakraborty v. Hexaware Technologies, Inc., the dispute concerns whether the parties’ agreement requires arbitration. The agreement covers challenges involving arbitrability, validity, scope, enforceability, jurisdiction, and unconscionability.

The agreement also clearly assigns those threshold questions to the arbitrator. The court noted that Chakraborty did not argue that this delegation provision itself was unconscionable.

Judge Vince Chhabria granted Hexaware’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case while arbitration proceeds. The parties must file a joint status report every 120 days unless they instead agree to dismiss the case without prejudice under the conditions stated in the order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Chakraborty v. Hexaware Technologies, Inc. · No. 3:24-cv-03458
Judge
Vince Chhabria
Date
Sept. 9, 2024

Background

Aparoop Chakraborty sued Hexaware Technologies, Inc. Hexaware asked the court to compel arbitration, meaning to require the dispute to be decided in arbitration rather than in court.

Court’s analysis

The arbitration provision states that disputes about arbitrability—the question of whether a dispute must be arbitrated—as well as the agreement’s validity, scope, enforceability, jurisdiction, and other threshold challenges must be submitted to arbitration. It specifically includes claims that the agreement is unconscionable, meaning unfairly one-sided or otherwise legally invalid.

The court found that this language clearly and unmistakably delegates threshold arbitrability issues, including unconscionability, to the arbitrator. The court also stated that Chakraborty had not argued that the delegation provision itself was unconscionable. Relying on Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, the court concluded that the motion to compel had to be granted.

Ruling and case status

Judge Vince Chhabria granted Hexaware’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration. The parties must file a joint status report every 120 days until the arbitration ends.

The order also states that the parties may avoid that reporting obligation by stipulating to dismiss the action without prejudice, with Hexaware waiving any statute-of-limitations defense based on the period during which the dispute is before the arbitrator.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.