1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SMILEDIRECTCLUB, INC., et al., Case No. 23-cv-01189-WHO

8 Petitioners,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

9 v. DISMISS AND DENYING PETITION

TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

10 RENEE COLORADO, Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 20 Respondent. 11

12 13 Respondent Renee Colorado has moved to dismiss a petition to compel arbitration brought 14 by petitioners SmileDirectClub, Inc. and SmileDirectClub, LLC (collectively, “SDC”). Dkt. No. 15 20. If this matter sounds familiar, it is: I previously granted a motion to compel arbitration in a 16 related putative class action of which Colorado admits he is an unnamed member: Navarro v. 17 SmileDirectClub, Inc., No. 22-CV-00095-WHO, 2022 WL 1786582, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 18 2022). After I granted SDC’s motion to compel arbitration in Navarro, Colorado filed his own 19 arbitration demand, seeking declaratory relief as a putative class member that the Navarro claims 20 were not arbitrable and attaching the First Amended Complaint filed in Navarro. See Dkt. No. 1, 21 Ex. A. But Colorado refused to sign a consent form required by the American Arbitration 22 Association for his arbitration to proceed, and it is currently closed. Nonetheless, SDC filed a 23 petition to compel arbitration in this Court. See Dkt. No. 1. 24 It is unclear why this matter is here. Colorado has not filed any complaint of his own and 25 does not have a pending arbitration either. His arbitration demand, as drafted, attempts to 26 piggyback on the Navarro claims. But Colorado is not Navarro. If Colorado wants to challenge 27 1 the arbitrability of the claims in Navarro, he should do so in that arbitration.' If he wants to assert 2 his own claims, he may do so. But at the moment, I have no claims from Colorado to evaluate. 3 I lack subject matter jurisdiction over SDC’s petition to compel arbitration. True, I found 4 || that the Class Action Fairness Act provided jurisdiction in Navarro. See Navarro vy. 5 SmileDirectClub, Inc., 2022 WL 1124594, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2022). But again, Colorado is 6 || not Navarro, and his now closed demand for arbitration does not appear to assert class claims. See 7 Dkt. No. 1, Ex. A. There are no satisfactory allegations regarding an amount in controversy 8 || unique to Colorado that would establish diversity jurisdiction; SDC simply relies on the amount 9 demanded in Navarro to estimate the amount in controversy here. See id.; see also Dkt. No. at 4 10 || n.2. And neither the Federal Arbitration Act nor the Declaratory Judgment Act provide federal 11 question jurisdiction. See Moses H. Cone Mem’! Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 25 12 n.32 (1983); Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Mortg. Guar. Ins. Corp., 642 F.3d 849, 852-53 (9th 5 13 || Cir. 2011). 14 IT understand why SDC is perplexed by Colorado’s conduct thus far. Iam too. But there is 3 15 nothing for me to decide at this point; in any event, I lack the jurisdiction to decide it. For those a 16 || reasons, Colorado’s motion to dismiss SDC’s petition for arbitration is GRANTED and SDC’s 3 17 petition to compel arbitration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 Dated: August 10, 2023 20 . 21 {iam H. Orrick United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 Indeed, Colorado and Navarro are represented by the same attorney, who is presumably familiar with the arguments that either party could make.