Bautista

Bautista v. Juul Labs, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaAugust 12, 20204:20-cv-01613California4,135 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 MARIA DE LA LUZ PEREZ BAUTISTA, Case No. 20-cv-01613-HSG et al., ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO Plaintiffs, COMPEL ARBITRATION 9 v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 34, 37 10 JUUL LABS, INC., et al., 11 Defendants. 12 Pending before the Court are motions to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings filed by Defendants Long Ying International, Inc. (“LYI”), David M. Ho, Juul Labs, Inc. (“Juul”), and the Coalition for Reasonable Vaping Regulation (“CRVR”). Dkt. Nos. 34 (“LYI Mot.”); 37 (“Juul Mot.”). Briefing on the motions is complete. Dkt. Nos. 49 (“LYI Opp.”); 50 (“Juul Opp.”); 51 (“LYI Reply”); 52 (“Juul Reply”). On June 25, 2020, the Court held a hearing on the motions. Dkt. No. 65. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings. I. BACKGROUND On June 25, 2019, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors banned the sale and distribution of e-cigarettes and vaping products in San Francisco.…

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.