Ma v. Twitter, Inc.
- Jon Tigar
- 4:23-cv-03301
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Ma v. Twitter, Judge Tigar ordered supplemental briefing on arbitration and continued the hearing on Petitioners’ motion to compel arbitration and for a preliminary injunction.
The petitioners and respondents involved in the motion to compel arbitration and for a preliminary injunction, including Twitter as referenced by the court.
What happened
In Ma v. Twitter, the petitioners asked the court to compel arbitration and issue a preliminary injunction. The opinion does not state the court’s ultimate decision on either request.
The court ordered Twitter to file an additional brief addressing five questions, including the proposed class’s relationship to people involved in other arbitration cases, where arbitration should occur, differences among arbitration-agreement versions, arbitration-fee rulings, and applicable fee law. Petitioners may respond.
Judge Tigar set deadlines of March 22, 2024, for Twitter’s brief and April 5, 2024, for Petitioners’ response, with each brief limited to 15 pages excluding exhibits. Judge Tigar continued the March 14 hearing to May 2, 2024.
The detailed version
- Ma v. Twitter, Inc. · No. 4:23-cv-03301
- Jon Tigar
- Mar. 11, 2024
Background
Petitioners moved to compel arbitration and for a preliminary injunction. The court reviewed the parties’ briefs but did not decide those requests in this order.
Order for supplemental briefing
The court ordered supplemental briefing, meaning additional written arguments, on five questions:
- Whether the proposed class includes individuals against whom Twitter has successfully sought arbitration in other cases, and how that could affect the motion.
- If Petitioners may seek to compel arbitration in this district even though the arbitrations were filed outside the district, whether the court must require the arbitration to occur in this district despite the arbitration agreements’ venue provisions.
- Whether different versions of the arbitration agreements affect the court’s rulings or produce the same result regardless of which version a petitioner signed.
- Whether the court has authority to reverse rulings by JAMS and the American Arbitration Association concerning payment of arbitration fees, assuming Petitioners’ motion is procedurally proper.
- If the court reaches the issue, whether applicable law in states where Twitter has not paid initial arbitration fees requires fee-splitting or merely permits it under certain conditions, and how that distinction would affect the analysis.
Deadlines and hearing
Twitter must file its supplemental brief by March 22, 2024. Petitioners may file a responsive brief by April 5, 2024. Each brief may be no longer than 15 pages, excluding exhibits. The court continued the March 14, 2024, hearing to May 2, 2024.
Disposition
Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered supplemental briefing and continued the hearing date. The order does not grant or deny the motion to compel arbitration or the request for a preliminary injunction.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.