1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 LIONEL HARPER, DANIEL SINCLAIR, No. 2:19-cv-00902 WBS DMC HASSAN TURNER, LUIS VAZQUEZ, and 13 PEDRO ABASCAL, individually and on behalf of all others 14 similarly situated and all ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION aggrieved employees, FOR AN INDICATIVE RULING 15 Plaintiffs, 16 v. 17 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, 18 Defendant. 19

20 ----oo0oo---- 21 Plaintiffs Hassan Turner and Luis Vazquez (collectively 22 and interchangeably, “plaintiffs”) have moved for an indicative 23 ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1(a). (Docket 24 No. 403.) Specifically, plaintiffs request an indicative ruling 25 from this court that it would reconsider its October 13, 2021, 26 order compelling arbitration (Docket No. 202) under Federal Rule 27 of Civil Procedure 60(b) in light of Ramirez v. Charter 28 1 Communications,

, 528, 531-32, 536-37, 540 (Cal. July 2 15, 2024), in which the Supreme Court of California found several 3 arbitration provisions that are similar or identical to the 4 provisions in this case substantively unconscionable. 5 Plaintiffs contend that Ramirez compels reconsideration 6 of the court’s prior order (Docket No. 202) to further the 7 interests of justice and avoid substantial reformation of the 8 parties’ original employment agreements. Defendant Charter 9 Communications, LLC (“defendant”) opposes the motion. The 10 parties note that a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth 11 Circuit will hear the appeal related to this matter, No. 22- 12 16429, on September 11, 2024. (Mot. at 6.) Defendant adds that 13 “the precise issues raised by plaintiffs in their motion are 14 fully briefed in their pending Ninth Circuit appeal” and that the 15 panel just “ordered supplemental briefing on the issues raised by 16 plaintiffs in their motion.” (Opp. at 1 (Docket No. 409) 17 (capitalization altered).) 18 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “[i]f 19 a timely motion is made for relief that the court lacks authority 20 to grant because of an appeal that has been docketed and is 21 pending, the court may: (1) defer considering the motion; (2) 22 deny the motion; or (3) state either that it would grant the 23 motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose or that 24 the motion raises a substantial issue.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a). 25 “[T]he purpose of Rule 62.1[(a)] is to promote judicial 26 efficiency and fairness by providing a mechanism for the district 27 court to inform the parties and the court of appeals how it could 28 rule on a motion made after the district court has been divested 1 of jurisdiction.” Amarin Pharms. Ir. Ltd. v. FDA, 2

(D.D.C. 2015). 3 The court fails to see how issuing an indicative ruling 4 in this case would “promote judicial efficiency and fairness,” 5 and plaintiffs provide no persuasive reason why the court should 6 do so. See

Instead, it appears that handing down an 7 indicative ruling would only throw a wrench into the appeal 8 already in front of the Ninth Circuit. See, e.g.,

(denying 9 Rule 62.1(a) motion in relevant part where movant requested that 10 the court provide “an indicative rul[ing] on the very issue on 11 appeal” (quoting Ret. Bd. of Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund 12 v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon,

(S.D.N.Y. 2013))); 13 Medgraph, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.,

, 211 & n.2 14 (W.D.N.Y. 2015) (declining to issue an indicative ruling 15 regarding prior summary judgment in patent suit despite a recent 16 Federal Circuit decision on patent infringement). 17 The Ninth Circuit may address Ramirez, in the first 18 instance, especially considering the appellate panel ordered 19 supplemental briefing on the issues it raises. However, if this 20 court issued an indicative ruling on Ramirez, that would likely 21 delay the previously scheduled proceedings in front of the Ninth 22 Circuit. Accordingly, the court declines to issue an indicative 23 ruling, and plaintiffs’ motion (Docket No. 403) is DENIED. If 24 the Ninth Circuit remands the case, plaintiffs will be free to 25 move for reconsideration or other relief under Rule 60(b) in 26 light of Ramirez, provided such relief is not precluded by the 27 28 nnn nnn en nn ne nn nnn nnn nen nnn nen nN

1 | Ninth Circuit’s remand.! 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 | Dated: August 22, 2024 bition th. Ld. be—~ 4 WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 29 1 The court expresses no opinion as to how it might rule 26 | on such a motion under Rule 60(b). See Henson v. Fidelity Nat’l Fin., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2019) (“[A] change in the 27 controlling law can—-but does not always-—provide a sufficient basis for granting relief under Rule 60(b)[].”). 28