Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 4, 2021

Broadbear v. Early

Judge
Maxine Chesney
Docket
3:20-cv-08060
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
ArbitrationCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Broadbear v. Early, Judge Chesney allowed supplemental briefing and continued the arbitration hearing without deciding whether the rental agreement requires arbitration.

Who this affects

Adrienne Broadbear and John P. Early; the court’s order also set briefing and scheduling requirements for both parties.

What happened

In Broadbear v. Early, Adrienne Broadbear, who rents an apartment in a building owned by John P. Early, brought claims alleging that Early failed to properly maintain the premises.

Early asked the court to require Broadbear to arbitrate those claims under the Federal Arbitration Act and the rental agreement’s arbitration provision. Broadbear opposed the request. The court said the parties had not provided enough authority about whether renting residential property involves interstate commerce under the Act.

Judge Maxine M. Chesney allowed each party to file a supplemental brief addressing that issue and other relevant authority. The court continued the hearing on Early’s motion to compel arbitration to February 5, 2021, and continued the case management conference to March 19, 2021.

The detailed version

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

Case
Broadbear v. Early · No. 3:20-cv-08060
Judge
Maxine Chesney
Date
Jan. 4, 2021

Background

Adrienne Broadbear rents an apartment in a building owned by John P. Early. Broadbear asserts several claims based on Early’s alleged failure to properly maintain the premises.

Motion and Issue

Early filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay the action under the Federal Arbitration Act and an arbitration provision in the parties’ rental agreement. Broadbear opposed the motion, and Early filed a reply.

The parties disputed whether the rental agreement is a contract involving interstate commerce, which is relevant to whether the Federal Arbitration Act applies. The court noted that the parties had cited no authority specifically addressing whether renting residential property affects interstate commerce. The court identified three potentially relevant authorities: Russell v. United States, United States v. Gomez, and Chambless Enterprises, LLC v. Redfield.

Order

The court granted both parties leave to file supplemental briefs of no more than five pages by January 18, 2021. The briefs were to address the identified authorities and any other previously uncited authority relevant to whether the rental agreement involves interstate commerce.

The court continued the hearing on Early’s motion to compel arbitration to February 5, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. It also continued the case management conference from February 19, 2021, to March 19, 2021, at 10:30 a.m., and required a joint case management statement by March 12, 2021. The order did not decide whether Broadbear’s claims must be arbitrated.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.