Mizar v. indiGO San Francisco, LLC
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:22-cv-04033
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Mizar v. indiGO San Francisco, Judge Corley ordered arbitration and stayed the case, finding the employer paid required fees on time.
Robert Mizar and indiGO San Francisco, LLC. Mizar’s claims will proceed in arbitration rather than in the federal court case, which the court stayed pending arbitration.
What happened
In Mizar v. indiGO San Francisco, LLC, Robert Mizar sued his former employer, alleging violations of California employment, competition, and overtime laws. Mizar had signed an agreement requiring arbitration of certain employment disputes.
The parties disagreed about when indiGO had to pay arbitration fees after Mizar submitted an arbitration demand. Mizar withdrew from arbitration and filed his lawsuit, arguing that indiGO had missed the payment deadline and therefore lost its right to require arbitration. indiGO argued that the deadline did not begin until the parties agreed on an arbitrator and the arbitration provider.
Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley granted indiGO’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the case. She ruled that the parties did not agree to use the JAMS arbitrator until May 25, 2022, so indiGO’s payment 15 days later was timely. The court also vacated the scheduled case-management conference.
The detailed version
- Mizar v. indiGO San Francisco, LLC · No. 3:22-cv-04033
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Sept. 15, 2022
Background
Robert Mizar sued his former employer, indiGO San Francisco, LLC, asserting claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and California Labor Code overtime provisions. Mizar had signed an employment arbitration agreement covering certain employment-related disputes. The agreement required the company and employee to mutually select a neutral arbitrator after a written arbitration demand. If they could not agree, either party could ask a court to appoint one. The agreement did not identify a particular arbitration provider.
Mizar submitted an arbitration demand to JAMS on March 22, 2022. The parties then negotiated over the arbitrator and the terms of the proceeding. Mizar proposed a retired judge who would serve through JAMS. indiGO initially agreed to that arbitrator only if Mizar accepted an in-person hearing. Mizar did not accept that condition and asked indiGO to agree without conditions concerning whether the hearing would be in person or virtual. On May 25, 2022, indiGO agreed to proceed without those conditions.
JAMS had uploaded notices and an invoice on April 29, 2022, stating that Mizar owed $150 and indiGO owed $1,350. Mizar later learned that indiGO had not yet paid the invoice. Mizar withdrew from arbitration under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.97 and filed this action in Marin County Superior Court. indiGO later paid the JAMS invoice on June 10, 2022, removed the case to federal court, and moved to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings.
Parties’ positions
Mizar argued that indiGO failed to pay arbitration fees within the statutory deadline. He contended that the April 2022 JAMS invoice started the 30-day payment period, or alternatively that the parties had agreed to use JAMS before May 25. Based on that alleged breach, Mizar argued that indiGO could not compel arbitration and requested fees under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.99.
indiGO argued that no fees were due until the parties agreed on an arbitrator and an arbitration provider. Because the parties did not reach that agreement until May 25, indiGO maintained that its June 10 payment was within the 30-day period required by section 1281.97.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the summary-judgment standard because the dispute concerned indiGO’s alleged failure or refusal to perform the arbitration agreement. The parties agreed that the court, rather than the arbitrator, should decide disputes about the agreement’s interpretation, enforceability, and validity.
The court interpreted the agreement as requiring the parties to select an arbitrator before arbitration fees or costs could become due. Because the agreement did not identify the arbitration provider, the court reasoned that no provider could properly issue an invoice starting the statutory payment period until the parties had agreed on the arbitrator and provider.
The court found that the parties exchanged counteroffers concerning the arbitrator and hearing conditions. Mizar’s response on April 26 asked indiGO to prepare a proposed stipulation for review and possible changes; the court concluded that this did not constitute acceptance of indiGO’s conditional offer. The court determined that the earliest agreement to use the JAMS arbitrator occurred on May 25, when indiGO accepted Mizar’s latest proposal. indiGO paid the invoice 15 days later, so the court held that the payment was timely and that indiGO did not materially breach the arbitration agreement under section 1281.97.
The court also rejected the argument that the April invoice independently started the 30-day period. It concluded that the invoice was premature because the parties had not yet agreed to use JAMS. The court noted that a company could not indefinitely refuse to select an arbitrator, but found that the parties’ two-month negotiation did not show conduct inconsistent with the right to arbitrate. The court did not address Mizar’s request for fees because it found no breach.
Disposition
The court GRANTED indiGO’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the matter pending arbitration. It vacated the October 6, 2022 case-management conference and stated that the order disposed of Docket No. 8.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.