Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 26, 2021

LaChapelle v. Omni Hotels Management Corporation

Judge
Maxine Chesney
Docket
3:21-cv-00490
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
ArbitrationCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In LaChapelle v. Omni Hotels, Judge Chesney vacated a motion hearing and allowed supplemental briefing on whether the arbitration agreement was enforceable.

Who this affects

Evelyn LaChapelle and Omni Hotels Management Corporation, whose pending motion to compel arbitration was left for supplemental briefing and later decision.

What happened

In LaChapelle v. Omni Hotels Management Corporation, Omni Hotels asked the court to require Evelyn LaChapelle to arbitrate her dispute. LaChapelle opposed the request.

LaChapelle argued that the arbitration agreement could not be enforced because Omni could unilaterally change or cancel it. The court identified additional authority, including a California appellate decision, that appeared relevant to that issue.

The court vacated the April 30, 2021 hearing and allowed both sides to file supplemental briefs of no more than five pages by May 7, 2021. Judge Maxine M. Chesney did not decide the motion to compel arbitration in this order.

The detailed version

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

Case
LaChapelle v. Omni Hotels Management Corporation · No. 3:21-cv-00490
Judge
Maxine Chesney
Date
Apr. 26, 2021

Background

Omni Hotels Management Corporation filed a motion to compel arbitration, meaning it asked the court to require the dispute to be resolved through arbitration rather than in court. Evelyn LaChapelle opposed the motion.

Issue Identified by the Court

LaChapelle argued that the arbitration agreement was illusory—meaning, as she argued, that it was not a meaningful or enforceable agreement—because it allowed Omni to change or revoke the agreement unilaterally. The parties cited authorities supporting their respective positions. The court identified additional authority, specifically Peleg v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., that appeared relevant to the issue.

Ruling and Next Steps

The court vacated the hearing on Omni's motion that had been scheduled for April 30, 2021. It gave each party permission to file a supplemental brief by May 7, 2021, limited to five pages, addressing Peleg and any other relevant authority not previously discussed. Unless the court advised otherwise, it would take the motion under submission as of May 7, 2021. The order did not decide whether the arbitration agreement was enforceable or whether Omni's motion should be granted.

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.