Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 24, 2019

Hodges v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC

Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Docket
4:18-cv-01829
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureArbitration
In one sentence

In Hodges v. Comcast, Judge Gilliam took Comcast’s stay-motion hearing off calendar until a related rehearing petition is resolved and ordered status reports.

Who this affects

Brandon Hodges, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and the other parties to the case were affected by the continued hearing and required status reports.

What happened

In Hodges v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Comcast appealed the court’s earlier order denying its motion to compel individual arbitration. Comcast then asked the court to stay the case while the appeal proceeded.

The parties agreed to remove the September 26, 2019 hearing on Comcast’s stay motion from the calendar and reset it after Comcast’s related rehearing petition in the Ninth Circuit case Tillage v. Comcast Corp. is resolved. The court ordered the parties to file a joint status report after that resolution, or within 90 days if the petition remained unresolved.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. approved the parties’ stipulation and entered the order on September 24, 2019. The order continued the hearing but did not decide Comcast’s stay motion or the underlying arbitration issue.

The detailed version

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

Case
Hodges v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC · No. 4:18-cv-01829
Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Date
Sept. 24, 2019

Background

Brandon Hodges brought this action for himself and others similarly situated against Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and Does 1–50. The opinion states that the court had previously denied Comcast’s motion to compel individual arbitration. Comcast filed a notice of appeal from that order on July 26, 2019, and filed a motion to stay the case pending appeal on July 31, 2019. The stay motion was set for hearing on September 26, 2019.

Comcast contended that the case should be stayed because, among other things, the appeal raised serious legal questions about whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts the rule announced by the California Supreme Court in McGill v. Citibank, N.A. Comcast had also filed a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in the Ninth Circuit in a related proceeding, Tillage v. Comcast Corp., concerning whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts the McGill rule.

Order

The parties stipulated that the September 26 hearing on Comcast’s motion to stay pending appeal would be taken off calendar and reset after Comcast’s petition for rehearing in the related Ninth Circuit proceeding was resolved. The court ordered the parties to submit a joint report of no more than two pages after that resolution. If the petition was not resolved within 90 days of the order, the parties were directed to submit a joint report on the status of the petition and Comcast’s appeal.

Effect of the Order

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. approved the stipulation and entered the order. This order addressed the timing of the stay-motion hearing and required status reports; it did not decide whether to grant or deny the stay motion, the appeal, or the arbitration dispute.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.