Brelsford v. YourMechanic, Inc.
- Edward Chen
- 3:20-cv-04452
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Brelsford v. YourMechanic, Inc., Judge Chen denied Brelsford’s request to end the stay because YourMechanic had not abandoned arbitration.
Joseph Brelsford and YourMechanic, Inc.; the stay remained in place while Brelsford’s individual claims proceeded toward arbitration.
What happened
Joseph Brelsford sued YourMechanic, Inc., alleging violations of federal and California wage-and-hour laws. The parties agreed to remove the class and collective claims and pause the case while Brelsford’s individual claims went to arbitration.
Brelsford asked the court to end the pause, arguing that YourMechanic had given up its right to require arbitration by initially refusing to pay the arbitration filing fees. The court found that Brelsford had agreed to pay the fees subject to raising the issue with the arbitrator, and YourMechanic accepted that arrangement.
The court denied Brelsford’s motion because he provided no evidence that YourMechanic had abandoned or rejected the arbitration agreement. Judge Chen also noted that YourMechanic paid both parties’ filing fees after Brelsford filed the motion, so the case remained paused pending arbitration.
The detailed version
- Brelsford v. YourMechanic, Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-04452
- Edward Chen
- Dec. 7, 2020
Background
Joseph Brelsford sued YourMechanic, Inc., alleging violations of federal and California wage-and-hour laws. He sought to proceed on behalf of a class, as a representative under California’s Private Attorneys General Act, and as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties later stipulated to strike the class and collective claims and to stay—that is, pause—the case while Brelsford’s individual claims proceeded to arbitration.
After Brelsford filed an arbitration demand, JAMS, the forum required by the arbitration agreement, advised the parties that the arbitration would not proceed until the required $400 filing fees were paid. YourMechanic initially disputed its obligation to pay the fees. After YourMechanic provided Brelsford’s counsel with his employment data, counsel asked the parties to proceed with arbitration and stated that Brelsford would pay the filing fees and raise the issue with the arbitrator. YourMechanic accepted that arrangement. Brelsford then did not pay his portion of the fees and instead asked the court to lift the stay. The next day, YourMechanic paid the filing fees for both parties.
Motion to Lift the Stay
Brelsford argued that YourMechanic’s initial refusal to pay the JAMS fees waived its right to compel arbitration. Under the legal standard applied by the court, waiver requires proof that the party knew of its arbitration right, acted inconsistently with that right, and prejudiced the opposing party.
The court found no evidence that YourMechanic acted inconsistently with its right to arbitrate. It determined that YourMechanic had some basis to dispute its obligation to pay the filing fee, and that Brelsford’s subsequent agreement to pay the fee—subject to review by the arbitrator—was accepted by YourMechanic. The court stated that Brelsford’s change of position did not show that YourMechanic had rejected the arbitration agreement. YourMechanic’s payment of the fees the day after Brelsford filed the motion further demonstrated its intent to proceed with arbitration.
Ruling
The court denied Brelsford’s motion to lift the stay because he failed to provide evidence that YourMechanic had waived or repudiated the arbitration agreement. The order disposed of Docket No. 18. Judge Edward Chen also vacated the scheduled hearing, finding the matter suitable for decision without oral argument.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.