Munoz

Munoz v. RDO Equipment Co.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 22, 20241:23-cv-00979California5,402 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SIMON MUNOZ, No. 1:23-cv-00979-DAD-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND

14 RDO EQUIPMENT CO., TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT

15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 9) 16

17 18 This matter is before the court on defendant’s July 10, 2023 motion to compel arbitration 19 and to dismiss plaintiff’s first amended complaint. (Doc. No. 9.) On July 11, 2023, the pending 20 motion was taken under submission on the papers. (Doc. No. 11.)1 For the reasons explained 21 below, the court will deny defendant’s motion in its entirety. 22 BACKGROUND 23 On May 30, 2023, plaintiff Simon Munoz filed the operative first amended complaint 24 (“FAC”) in the Stanislaus County Superior Court initiating this putative class action against his 25 former employer, defendant RDO Equipment Co., alleging that defendant violated various 26 ///// 27

28 1 On September 13, 2023, the case was…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.