Azeveda v. Comcast Cable Communications Management LLC

Background

Mario Azeveda filed a putative class action alleging that Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and related California laws by obtaining employment background reports without proper disclosures or authorization. He also alleged violations involving meal and rest periods, hourly and overtime wages, wage statements, and final pay.

The defendants removed the case from California state court to federal court, relying on the federal claims and related state-law claims. Azeveda moved to remand, arguing that he lacked the concrete injury required for federal standing. The defendants moved to compel arbitration on an individual basis and to dismiss the putative class claims.

Motion to Remand

The court held that Azeveda had adequately alleged an injury in fact. Although his Fair Credit Reporting Act claims alleged procedural violations, his California unfair-competition claim—based on those violations—also alleged that he lost money or property. The court concluded that this allegation supplied the economic injury needed for Article III standing. It therefore held that the court had federal-question jurisdiction over the Fair Credit Reporting Act claims and supplemental jurisdiction over the related state-law claims.

The court DENIED Azeveda’s motion to remand.

Motion to Compel Arbitration

The court applied the Federal Arbitration Act, which generally requires enforcement of valid written arbitration agreements. It considered whether a valid agreement existed and whether the agreement covered the dispute.

The court concluded that the 2015 version of Comcast’s Solutions program applied to Azeveda’s claims, including claims that arose before the 2015 changes. The program broadly covered claims related to or arising from any aspect of the employment relationship and no longer excluded claims involving unauthorized use or disclosure of private information.

The court also found a valid arbitration agreement. Azeveda received notice of the program, had an opportunity to opt out, electronically acknowledged reading and understanding the updated program, and continued working. The court determined that he had not shown the 2015 program to be procedurally unconscionable and that his claims fell within its scope.

The program included a class-action waiver. Because Azeveda had five weeks to opt out but did not do so, the court held that the waiver was enforceable. The court did not address the defendants’ argument concerning delegation of claim-coverage questions to the arbitrator because it applied the court’s two-step inquiry instead.

Disposition

The court GRANTED the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Azeveda must arbitrate his claims on an individual basis rather than on a class, collective, or representative basis. The case was STAYED pending arbitration, the file was administratively closed, and the parties were ordered to notify the court within seven days after an arbitration ruling.