Bautista
Bautista v. Juul Labs, Inc.
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.…