Anderson

Anderson v. Starbucks Corporation

Caution
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 16, 20223:20-cv-01178California2,115 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 ELIZABETH ANDERSON, et al. Case No. 20-cv-01178-JD individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

ORDER RE ARBITRATION

Plaintiffs, 9 Re: Dkt. No. 53 v.

STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Defendant.

14 Two years after plaintiffs filed this California wage and hour class action in the Alameda County Superior Court in 2019, defendant Starbucks Corporation seeks to compel arbitration of the non-PAGA (California Labor Code Private Attorney General’s Act of 2004, §§ 2699 et eq.) claims of 10 named plaintiffs: Elizabeth Anderson, Jeffrey Bellows, James Hancock, Eric Lorack, Amanda Brekke, Casey McKay, Jordone Shane-Sanchez, Sherri Bradley, Kevin Steinbeck, and Omar Garland. Dkt. No. 53 at 1. Starbucks does not seek arbitration for the remaining 11 named plaintiffs. Id. For reasons that are not clear to the Court, plaintiffs Brekke, McKay, Shane- Sanchez, Bradley, Steinbeck, and Garland do not oppose Starbucks’ request. See Dkt. No. 55 at 1 n.1. Those individuals have in effect…

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.