Nanya

BACKGROUND

23 Mr. Nanya was one of several investors in a series of funds operated by Petitioners. 24 Pursuant to an arbitration clause in the parties’ operating agreement, Mr. Nanya initiated 25 arbitration proceedings through the American Arbitration Association against Petitioners on an 26 individual and class basis. (Dkt. No. 10-5 at ¶ 6.) Another investor, Jocelyn Carter, who likewise 27 claims for securities fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment arising out of the same factual predicate. See Carter v. Spiegel, No. 21-3990, Dkt. No. 1 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2021). The court there granted Petitioners’ motion to compel arbitration of Ms. Carter’s claims based on the same arbitration agreement at issue here. See Carter v. Spiegel, No. 21-CV-03990-TSH, 2022 WL 126303 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2022). In doing so, the court found that Ms. Carter could only proceed on her claims on an individual, not class basis because the arbitration agreement was silent as to class actions. Id. at *4 (citing Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019); Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, (2010)). …