1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SIMONE RUFFIN, Case No.: 3:22-cv-00191-RBM-BJC

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S

13 v. MOTIONS

14 DUDEK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. et [Docs. 52–55, 58] al., 15 Defendants. 16

17

DUDEK AND ASSOCIATES, INC.,

18 Cross Claimant, 19 v. 20 TEKSYSTEMS, INC., et al., 21 Cross Defendants. 22 23 24 Plaintiff Simone Ruffin (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this case alleging 25 various employment-related claims against Defendant Dudek and Associates, Inc. 26 (“Defendant”). (Doc. 1.) Despite the Court’s order compelling arbitration and staying this 27 case pending the conclusion of arbitration (Doc. 40), as well as three subsequent Court 28 orders reiterating that this case is stayed pending arbitration (Docs. 41, 44, 50), Plaintiff 1 has filed more motions in this stayed case. (Docs. 52–55, 58.) For the reasons set forth 2 below, these motions are DENIED, and this case remains stayed pending the conclusion 3 of the arbitration. 4 On February 8, 2023, the Court issued an Order granting a motion to compel 5 arbitration and staying this case pending the conclusion of arbitration. (Doc. 40 at 7.1) 6 Based on the filings summarized below (Docs. 52–56, 58–59), the arbitration has not 7 concluded, and this case remains stayed pending the conclusion of the ongoing arbitration. 8 The Court previously addressed a number of Plaintiff’s filings that followed the 9 Court’s February 8, 2024 Order compelling this case to arbitration. (See Docs. 44, 50.) 10 The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. 11 (Doc. 44.) Plaintiff then filed a motion that primarily reiterated Plaintiff’s claims from the 12 Complaint, alleged problems with opposing counsel, and raised issues with the court and 13 its decisions. (Doc. 45.) It also appeared to challenge the timeliness of the completion of 14 the arbitration. (Id.) The Court’s June 22, 2023 Order addressing that filing clarified that 15 the arbitration did not have to be completed within 14 days of the Court’s February 8, 2023 16 Order compelling arbitration. (Doc. 50 at 2.) The Order explained that the parties were 17 required to file a joint report within 14 days of the completion of the arbitration and 18 indicated that “[n]o other filings are permitted in this case absent leave of court.” (Id.) 19 Plaintiff has now filed five additional motions. (Docs. 52–55, 58.) In the first 20 motion, Plaintiff moves to remove this case from arbitration because she believes her 21 claims are not subject to arbitration, that the assigned arbitrator should be recused, and that 22 Defendant’s counsel’s conduct during a Preliminary Arbitration Management Conference 23 warrants a return to this Court. (Doc. 52.) The second motion reiterates most of the same 24 allegations as the first motion, but adds more challenges to the arbitrator, and asserts a right 25 to a trial because Plaintiff rejected a settlement offer. (Doc. 53.) The third motion moves 26 27 28 1 to void sanctions issued against Plaintiff in the arbitration that appear to be related to 2 Plaintiff not appearing for scheduled depositions, both her own and one she noticed. (Doc. 3 54.) The fourth motion is titled “Motion to Take Leave to File Memorandum.” (Doc. 55.) 4 It repeats the allegations of her prior filings and attaches numerous documents from the 5 arbitration. (Id.) Plaintiff’s fifth motion requests the case be remanded back to this Court 6 because Defendant allegedly did not timely pay the arbitration fees. (Doc. 58.) 7 Defendant has filed two Oppositions. (Docs. 56, 58.) The first argues there is no 8 basis for this Court to exercise interlocutory jurisdiction over the issues Plaintiff has raised 9 because the case has been compelled to arbitration. (Doc. 56 at 9–10.2) The second 10 addresses Plaintiff’s argument regarding the payment of fees in the arbitration (Doc. 59 at 11 5–7) and requests the Court issue monetary sanctions against Plaintiff for her repeated 12 improper filings (id. at 7–8). 13 Although Plaintiff cites a variety of statutes and rules in each of her filings, she does 14 not cite any legal authority that would require or even allow this Court to consider her 15 challenges to the arbitration proceedings, particularly while the arbitration is ongoing. 16 Plaintiff seems to be attempting to relitigate each step of the arbitration process she finds 17 adverse in these motions. However, permitting her challenges while the arbitration is 18 ongoing would undermine this Court’s order compelling arbitration pursuant to the Federal 19 Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and allow her to raise challenges not permitted under the FAA. 20 Even after an arbitration concludes and an arbitration award is issued, a step the parties in 21 this case have yet to reach, the FAA “afford[s] an extremely limited review authority” to 22 federal courts. See Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Servs., Inc., 341 F.3d 987, 23 997–98 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing 9 U.S.C. §§ 10–11). Plaintiff cannot avoid this limited 24 25 26 2 Defendant also substantively addresses a number of Plaintiff’s challenges, including 27 disputing the misconduct Plaintiff alleges. (Doc. 56 at 9, 10–14.) Because there is no legal basis for Plaintiff to raise these issues in this Court at this time, the Court does not address 28 | review by raising challenges early in a case that has been stayed pending the conclusion of 2 || the arbitration. Accordingly, all of Plaintiff's motions (Docs. 52-58) are DENIED. 3 As noted above, Defendant’s second Opposition includes a request for sanctions 4 ||against Plaintiff for her improper motions. (Doc. 59 at 7-8.) Defendant seeks these 5 sanctions as compensation for the expenses incurred in reviewing and opposing □□□□□□□□□□□ 6 || motions and “[t]o deter Plaintiff from engaging in similar conduct in the future.” (/d. at 8.) 7 || At this point, the Court declines to impose sanctions on Plaintiff; however, if Plaintiff 8 continues to file improper motions in this stayed case before the arbitration is completed, 9 || Defendant may move for sanctions. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: August 16, 2024 FPA Burrus, Wittesyys

B HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28