Farr v. Acima Credit, LLC
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-08619
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Farr v. Acima Credit, Judge Rogers denied Farr’s request to extend the deadline for seeking reconsideration so she could conduct discovery.
The order affected Sieara Farr’s deadline for seeking reconsideration and her ability to conduct the proposed discovery before filing that motion; it did not decide the reconsideration motion itself.
What happened
In Farr v. Acima Credit, LLC, Farr asked for more time to file a motion asking the court to reconsider its earlier order denying class certification. She wanted to conduct focused discovery about whether Acima used certain remedies listed in Row 11 of its arbitration clause outside arbitration proceedings.
The court said that discovery was not relevant to how the arbitration clause should be interpreted. It explained that the earlier order did not say Row 11 remedies could be used only to maintain the status quo pending arbitration; instead, claims seeking those remedies need not be arbitrated when a court grants them solely to maintain the parties’ existing situation.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied the request to extend the filing deadline. The court said Farr could seek permission to supplement the record after filing the reconsideration motion if she showed good cause, and it terminated the docket entry for the motion.
The detailed version
- Farr v. Acima Credit, LLC · No. 4:20-cv-08619
- Yvonne Rogers
- Aug. 9, 2021
Background
Sieara Farr filed an administrative motion to extend the deadline for filing a motion for reconsideration of the court’s July 7, 2021 order granting Acima Credit LLC’s motion to deny class certification. Farr requested additional time to conduct focused discovery about whether Acima itself used remedies identified in Row 11 of its arbitration clause separately from arbitration proceedings.
Court’s reasoning
The court denied the extension because Farr had not adequately shown that the proposed discovery was relevant to her interpretation of the arbitration clause. The court clarified that its earlier ruling did not hold that Row 11 remedies apply only when needed to maintain the status quo pending arbitration. Instead, the court had concluded that claims seeking those remedies need not be arbitrated when a court grants the remedies solely to maintain the parties’ existing situation. The court also stated that this interpretation does not prevent customers from pursuing self-help remedies.
The court further explained that whether Acima or its customers pursued Row 11 remedies outside arbitration did not affect whether a court was authorized to grant those remedies generally.
Disposition
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied Farr’s administrative motion to extend the deadline for filing a motion for reconsideration. The court stated that Farr could seek leave to supplement the record after filing the reconsideration motion if she showed good cause. The order did not decide the motion for reconsideration itself and terminated Docket Number 52.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.