9th Circuit Is Urged to Stay SiriusXM Appeal Until SCOTUS Decides Arbitration Case
The three plaintiff-appellants seeking to reverse the district court’s order compelling their false advertising claims against SiriusXM to individual arbitration (see 2311130005) joined with SiriusXM Friday to ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court to stay the appeal (docket 23-4018), pending the outcome of an important U.S. Supreme Court arbitration case. SiriusXM also wants the 9th Circuit to stay its cross-appeal (docket 23-4338) challenging the district court’s authority to dismiss the case instead of staying the proceedings after compelling claims to arbitration.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The plaintiff-appellants allege that SiriusXM falsely advertised its music plans at lower prices than it actually charged. They opposed SiriusXM’s motion to compel, arguing that provisions in their customer agreement’s “class action waiver” violate California public policy and are unenforceable, thus nullifying the entire arbitration agreement. But the district court held that the plaintiffs’ arguments failed because they challenged a provision of the class-action waiver that didn't apply to them.
The parties are asking the 9th Circuit to vacate all current deadlines in the appeal and cross-appeal until SCOTUS resolves Smith v. Spizzirri (docket 22-1218), said their joint motion Friday. In Spizzirri, SCOTUS will determine whether a district court has the authority to dismiss an action after granting a motion to compel, it said. None of the parties wants the 9th Circuit “to expend resources on a question that will be answered soon enough by the Supreme Court,” it said. SCOTUS granted the Spizzirri petitioners cert on Jan. 12. The case is set for April 22 oral argument, said the Supreme Court Friday.
In dismissing the case after compelling arbitration, the district court relied on that “form of procedure” under the 9th Circuit’s 2014 precedent in Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale’s, said the motion. Though SiriusXM acknowledges that the Johnmohammadi precedent was the law of the circuit, it expressly preserves its right to argue that Johnmohammadi was “wrongly decided,” it said.
Whether the district court dismisses or stays a case after compelling arbitration “directly impacts when the order compelling arbitration is subject to appellate review,” said the motion. The Spizzirri case is an employment dispute in which delivery drivers for Intelliserve alleged violations of federal and state law, such as misclassifying drivers as independent contractors and failing to pay the drivers minimum wage and overtime, it said. The district court dismissed the action, after compelling the drivers’ claims to arbitration, citing its discretion to do so under Johnmohammadi, it said. The 9th Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court “had correctly followed circuit authority,” it said.
Since granting cert, SCOTUS has “made clear” that it intends to resolve Spizzirri this term ending late June, said the motion. Staying the 9th Circuit appeal and cross-appeal pending the SCOTUS decision in Spizzirri “is a matter of common sense,” it said.
A basis on which the 9th Circuit appeal and cross-appeal is “premised” is now before the Supreme Court, said the motion. In the Spizzirri case, SCOTUS will decide if a district court can dismiss a case if all claims are ordered to arbitration, “in which case the underlying order compelling arbitration is immediately appealable,” it said.
SCOTUS alternatively will rule that such a case must be stayed, “in which case the underlying order compelling arbitration may not be appealable as of right until a judgment is entered after arbitration,” said the motion. “The propriety of the district court’s course of conduct is thus directly before the Supreme Court,” and SCOTUS will decide on that course of conduct “in a few months’ time,” it said.
The 9th Circuit, the parties and their counsel shouldn’t expend resources “when the appropriateness of the district court’s dismissal is currently under Supreme Court review,” said the motion. The 9th Circuit “can stay this appeal and cross-appeal using its inherent authority,” it said. A stay of the appeal and cross-appeal is also “justified” under 9th Circuit precedent, it said.
The competing interests “militate in favor of a stay,” said the motion. There’s no possible damage that would result from this stay, it said. Both sides of this litigation are requesting the stay, and the 9th Circuit won’t be harmed “if this appeal and cross-appeal are temporarily put on pause,” it said.
If the appeal and cross-appeal aren’t stayed, the parties “will suffer the hardship of having to prepare appellate briefs that could soon be rendered obsolete by the Supreme Court’s decision,” said the motion. The “orderly course of justice” will result from a stay because SCOTUS “will first have its say about stays and dismissals in arbitration cases,” it said. The 9th Circuit afterward can apply the SCOTUS ruling to this appeal and cross-appeal, it said.