Cottrell

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 DAVID COTTRELL, Case No. 19-cv-07672-JCS

7 Plaintiff,

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO

8 v. COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY

9 AT&T INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 17 Defendants. 10

11 I. INTRODUCTION 12 Defendants AT&T Inc., Pacific Bell Telephone Co., and DIRECTV, LLC (collectively, 13 “AT&T”) move to compel arbitration of Plaintiff David Cottrell’s claims, or in the alternative, to 14 stay this case pending a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on petitions for certiorari raising 15 similar issues. Cottrell contends that AT&T cannot enforce the mandatory arbitration provision in 16 the parties’ agreement because the agreement’s waiver of public injunctive relief is unenforceable 17 under the California Supreme Court’s decision in McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2 Cal. 5th 945 (2017), 18 and because the agreement by its terms provides that the arbitration provision as a whole is void if 19 that waiver is found unenforceable. The Court finds the matter suitable for resolution…