Saidwal v. Flagship
- Jeffrey White
- 4:19-cv-08211
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Saidwal v. Flagship, Judge White denied leave to add a sexual-harassment claim because the alleged harm accrued before the relevant federal arbitration law took effect.
Bibi Nohia Saidwal and Flagship; the amendment was denied, and the parties remained subject to the court’s prior order compelling arbitration.
What happened
Bibi Nohia Saidwal asked to amend her complaint to add a sexual-harassment claim while the case was stayed pending arbitration. She argued that the amendment would bring the case under the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021.
The court concluded that the alleged injuries and harm accrued in 2018, when Saidwal was terminated, rather than after the Act’s March 3, 2022 effective date. The court therefore denied her motion for leave to amend.
The court also declined to revisit its earlier order compelling arbitration, stating that the parties had formed an arbitration agreement and that the agreement delegated disputes about its validity and enforceability to the arbitrator. Judge White ordered further arbitration status reports by March 6, 2023.
The detailed version
- Saidwal v. Flagship · No. 4:19-cv-08211
- Jeffrey White
- Dec. 6, 2022
Background
The case was stayed pending arbitration. On November 3, 2022, Plaintiff Bibi Nohia Saidwal moved for permission to amend her complaint to add a sexual-harassment claim. The court noted that her original complaint alleged that a coworker touched her shoulders but did not explicitly assert a sexual-harassment claim.
Saidwal argued that adding the claim would bring the case within the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021. That law provides that, at the election of a person alleging sexual harassment or sexual assault, a predispute arbitration agreement is not enforceable for a case relating to that dispute. The Act expressly applies to claims that arise or accrue after March 3, 2022.
Ruling on Amendment
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 generally favors allowing amendments. Courts consider undue delay, bad faith or a dilatory motive, repeated failure to amend successfully, undue prejudice, and futility. The court focused on when the alleged claim accrued. Saidwal was terminated on December 21, 2018, and conceded that the matter arose in 2018. The court concluded that the injuries and harm accrued in 2018, despite the change in law after she filed the lawsuit. Because the Act did not apply to her claim, the court denied her motion for leave to amend.
Arbitration Agreement
In her reply, Saidwal also argued that Defendant Flagship may have forged her signature on the arbitration agreement. She said that copies of agreements signed in 2017 and 2018 were blank and submitted signed and unsigned copies with her reply. The court stated that it remained satisfied that the parties formed an agreement to arbitrate. It also noted that the agreement delegated disputes about the clause’s interpretation and application—including enforceability, revocability, and validity—to the arbitrator.
The court therefore declined to revisit its prior order granting Flagship’s motion to compel arbitration. It ordered the parties to file further status reports about the arbitration by March 6, 2023.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.