Yu v. ByteDance Inc.

Background

The court held a December 1 hearing on defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. The motion relied on the ECIAA, the Stock Option Assignment Agreement, the Patent Assignment Agreement, and the Undertaking Agreement. Defense counsel stated that the last three agreements were relevant because defendants intended to assert defenses or counterclaims based on them.

Court’s Discussion

The court found that, given the unusual procedural history of the parties’ litigation, defendants should file answers before the court ruled on the motion to compel arbitration. The court also indicated that it was inclined to find that Yu had placed in dispute whether he signed the ECIAA, which would entitle him to a jury trial on that issue. However, the court explained that finding another arbitration agreement enforceable could eliminate the need for that jury trial.

The court further noted that Yu’s briefing on the other three agreements had focused mainly on whether those agreements were part of this case, rather than whether they were enforceable. The court also required briefing on the effect of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Bielski v. Coinbase, Inc., issued after the hearing.

Order

The court did not rule on the motion to compel arbitration in this order. It directed defendants to file their answers by December 21, 2023. It ordered supplemental briefing on the enforceability of the other three arbitration agreements, including whether a signed Undertaking Agreement exists, whether the Patent Agreement can be enforced against Yu, and the impact of Bielski. The parties were directed to meet and confer about a briefing schedule and file a stipulation and proposed order by December 21, with briefs to be filed in January. The court stated that it would schedule another hearing if necessary. Judge Susan Illston signed the order.