Norde v. Center for Autism and Related Disorders, LLC
- Donna Ryu
- 4:22-cv-00639
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Norde v. Center for Autism, Judge Ryu ordered arbitration of Norde’s data-breach claims and stayed the case.
Cade Norde, CARD, and the proposed class members whose claims were subject to the arbitration agreement were affected. The court required arbitration of the dispute and stayed the entire case, including the proposed class action.
What happened
In Norde v. Center for Autism and Related Disorders, LLC, former employee Cade Norde brought a proposed class action alleging that a cyberattack exposed sensitive information and that CARD violated privacy laws and other duties.
CARD asked the court to require arbitration under an agreement Norde signed when she was hired. Norde did not dispute signing the agreement, but argued that her claims were outside its scope and that the agreement was unfair and unenforceable.
Judge Donna Ryu granted CARD’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the entire case while arbitration proceeded. She administratively closed the case, allowing the parties to seek reopening by filing a joint status report within two weeks after arbitration ends.
The detailed version
- Norde v. Center for Autism and Related Disorders, LLC · No. 4:22-cv-00639
- Donna Ryu
- Aug. 22, 2022
Background
Cade Norde filed a proposed class action against her former employer, Center for Autism and Related Disorders, LLC (CARD), based on a data breach. CARD announced in October 2020 that a cyberattack had exposed highly sensitive personal health, identifying, and financial information, including clinical and treatment information, contact information, birth dates, and insurance details. Norde alleged that her information was exposed and asserted claims involving the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, negligence, invasion of privacy, breach of confidence, implied contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and unjust enrichment. She sought to represent a nationwide class, including a subclass of California residents.
When Norde was hired, she and CARD signed an arbitration agreement. The agreement stated that arbitration was mandatory and the exclusive remedy for all disputes, waived participation in class actions, and covered claims arising from the employment relationship and claims under federal and state laws. It also expressly covered the issue of whether a dispute was subject to arbitration.
Arguments and analysis
CARD moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss the action or, alternatively, stay it. Norde did not dispute the agreement’s existence or that she signed it. She argued that her claims did not arise from her employment because the breach occurred after her employment ended. She also argued that the agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable, meaning unfairly imposed and unfair in its terms.
The court held that the agreement clearly and unmistakably delegated questions about arbitrability to the arbitrator. Because Norde challenged the agreement as a whole, rather than specifically challenging the delegation provision, the court concluded that the arbitrator—not the court—had to decide her arguments about the agreement’s scope and enforceability, including unconscionability.
Ruling
The court granted CARD’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action in its entirety pending final resolution of the arbitration. It did not dismiss the case. For case-management purposes, the court administratively closed the action. The parties may seek to reopen it by filing a joint status report within two weeks after any arbitration is completed.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.