Sergio Gonzalez v. Coverall North America, Inc.

I. Background

In April 2017, the District Court sent the question of arbitrability to the

arbitrator and then granted Gonzalez’s motion to dismiss without prejudice.

Gonzalez appealed. Gonzalez v. Coverall N. Am., Inc., 754 F. App’x 594, 595 (9th

Cir. 2019) (Gonzalez I).

While “it is ‘well established that § 16(b) [of the Federal Arbitration Act

(FAA)] bars appeals of interlocutory orders compelling arbitration and staying

judicial proceedings,’” Langere v. Verizon Wireless Servs., LLC, 983 F.3d 1115,

1118 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted), we have held that plaintiffs could

immediately appeal an order compelling arbitration “if they voluntarily dismissed

their claims with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2),” id. (citing Omstead v. Dell, Inc.,

594 F.3d 1081, 1085 (9th Cir. 2010)). That did not happen here; Gonzalez’s claims

were dismissed without prejudice. Gonzalez I, 754 F. App’x at 595.

Nor could Gonzalez rely on the other strategy we have endorsed: where the

2 district court orders all of a party’s claims to arbitration and dismisses all of the

claims without prejudice. Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale’s, Inc., 755 F.3d 1072,

1074 (9th Cir. 2014). That did not happen…