1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5

GABRIEL AROCHA,

6 Case No. 4:22-cv-06851-YGR Plaintiff, 7 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: STAY OF v. PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF 8 CARMONA V. DOMINO’S PIZZA, LLC WEB TO DOOR CORP., et al., 9 Re: Dkt. No. 17 Defendants. 10

11 The Court is in receipt of defendant Web to Door Corp.’s Motion to Compel Individual 12 Arbitration, which has now been fully briefed. (Dkt. No. 17; see also Dkt. Nos. 18-20, 22, 24, 26- 13 27.) Parties’ briefs suggest the resolution of the pending motion will rest in large part on the 14 Court’s determination as to the nature and scope of an exception to the Federal Arbitration Act 15 (“FAA”) that has been interpreted to include certain transportation workers. See 9 U.S.C. § 1 16 (excepting “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers 17 engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” from the FAA). 18 This provision of the FAA has been heavily litigated in recent years, most notably in 19 Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, where the U.S. Supreme Court established a new framework for 20 applying the exception. See generally 142 S. Ct. 1783 (2022). As defendant Web to Door Corp. 21 notes in their motion, the Supreme Court had an opportunity to revisit Saxon when considering a 22 petition for writ of certiorari in Carmona v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, a Ninth Circuit case decided 23 after Saxon and which implicated roughly similar facts to the instant case. 21 F.4th 627 (9th Cir. 24 2021). There, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and remanded for “further 25 consideration in light of [Saxon].” 143 S. Ct. 361 (Oct. 17, 2022). This is notable because the 26 Ninth Circuit relied in Carmona on a pre-Saxon case, Rittman v. Amazon.com, Inc., 971 F.3d 904 27 (9th Cir. 2020), which parties ask the Court to construe in the context of the pending motion. 1 As the Ninth Circuit’s forthcoming opinion in Carmona is likely to clarify the applicability 2 || of Rittman, post-Saxon, this Court ORDERS parties to SHOW CAUSE why the instant proceedings 3 should not be stayed pending resolution of Carmona. Parties shall each file a response on the 4 || docket no later than one week (7 days) from the issuance of this Order setting forth their analysis, 5 which shall not exceed, at maximum, five pages. If parties wish to stipulate to a stay, they may 6 alternatively do so in a joint statement subject to the same timing and length requirements. 7 To enable the Court to consider parties’ responses, the hearing on defendant Web to Door 8 Corp.’s Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration currently scheduled for June 13, 2023, at 2:00 9 || p.m. is VACATED and will be reset if necessary. 10 IT Is SO ORDERED. 11 12 || Dated: May 26, 2023 13 Sypeae Haggler UMFeD STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

16

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28