Pina v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 10 AT SEATTLE 11 CARLOS PINA, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00170-RAJ 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC and 15 COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, 16 LLC, 17 Defendants. 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants Comcast Cable 20 Communications, LLC and Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC 21 (“Defendants”)’s Motion to Stay Proceedings. Dkt. # 30. Plaintiff Carlos Pina 22 (“Plaintiff”) did not file a Response to the Motion.1 23 For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion and 24 STAYS this case pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision on interlocutory appeal. 25 26 1 Despite not responding to the Motion, Plaintiff has indicated his opposition. Dkt. # 31 at ¶ 2. 1 II. BACKGROUND 2 This is a wrongful termination action involving allegations of retaliation and 3 disability discrimination. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a communications 4 technician since 1996. Dkt. # 1-1 at ¶ 2.2. In 2021, he sustained a work-related injury, 5 and he shortly after received long-term disability leave. Id. at ¶¶ 2.10–2.12. Defendant 6 engaged in a phone call to discuss his injury with his supervisor, with whom he already 7 had a tumultuous relationship. Id. at ¶¶ 2.14–2.17. During the phone call, Plaintiff 8 requested an accommodation in exchange for his returning to work due to his needing a 9 left hip replacement. Id. at ¶¶ 2.18–2.20. After informing Plaintiff they would not 10 accommodate him, Defendants released him from his position and ultimately terminated 11 his employment. Id. at ¶¶ 2.21–2.29. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants and asserts 12 the following causes of action: (1) common law retaliation for filing a claim under Title 13 51 RCW; (2) discrimination due to disparate treatment; (3) retaliation; and (4) failure to 14 accommodate. Id. at ¶¶ 3.2–3.19. 15 In their Motion to Compel Arbitration, Defendants stated that an alternative 16 dispute resolution program called Comcast Solutions was enforceable and bound Plaintiff 17 to arbitration. Under the program, there is a three-step dispute resolution process, 18 involving (1) review/facilitation for “claims related to or arising from any aspect of the 19 employment relationship, including, without limitation . . . terms and conditions of 20 employment, and the termination of the employment relationship; (2) a non-binding 21 mediation through an outside, professional dispute organization; and (3) a binding 22 arbitration hearing. Dkt. # 18-1 at 7. Defendants implemented Comcast Solutions over 23 the course of several months in 2013. Dkt. # 18 at ¶ 3. If an employee did not want to 24 participate in Comcast Solutions, he or she could opt out of the program by submitting a 25 26 1 designated form by a certain date, which in this case was five weeks after receiving the 2 related brochures. Id. at ¶ 6. 3 Defendants claimed that they provided the Comcast Solutions brochure to Plaintiff 4 in both hard copy and electronic form via email. Dkt. # 16 at 4. Conversely, Plaintiff 5 affirmatively stated to the best of his knowledge that he never received the brochure, his 6 inaction did not constitute assent to the terms of Comcast Solutions, and even if it did, 7 Comcast Solutions is unconscionable. See generally Dkt. # 24. 8 The Court declined the Motion to Compel Arbitration, finding that the lack of 9 evidence presented by Defendants and Plaintiff’s direct testimony rebutted the 10 presumption of receipt created by the mailbox rule. Dkt. # 27 at 5. On May 5, 2025, 11 Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal from a Judgment or Order of a United States District 12 Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(a) and 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(B). 13 Dkt. # 29. Defendants now ask the Court to stay this matter pending interlocutory appeal. 14 Dkt. # 30. 15 III. LEGAL STANDARD 16 Pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, a party has the authority to file an 17 interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to compel arbitration. 9 U.S.C. § 18 16(a)(1)(C). “The common practice in § 16(a) cases . . . is for a district court to stay its 19 proceedings while the interlocutory appeal on arbitrability is ongoing. That common 20 practice reflects common sense.” Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, 599 U.S. 736, 742–43 (2023). 21 “Absent an automatic stay of district court proceedings, Congress’s decision in § 16(a) 22 to afford a right to an interlocutory appeal would be largely nullified.” Id. at 743. 23 IV. DISCUSSION 24 The Court summarily grants Defendants’ Motion. The Supreme Court’s decision 25 in Coinbase states that granting a stay reflects the common practice, which in turn reflects 26 1 common sense. See id. at 742–43. In Coinbase, the defendant filed a motion to compel 2 arbitration, which the district court subsequently denied. The defendant sought an 3 immediate appeal pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 16(a), and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. 4 The question before the Supreme Court was “whether the district court must stay its pre- 5 trial and trial proceedings while the interlocutory appeal is ongoing.” Id. at 738. The 6 Supreme Court answered that question in the affirmative. See id. 7 The facts in the instant matter are almost identical to those in Coinbase. 8 Accordingly, the Court sees no reason to deviate from the “common sense” practice of 9 staying the case pending interlocutory appeal. Moreover, Plaintiff has not offered any 10 reasoning to counter Defendants’ argument and binding case law. The Court will 11 therefore grant Defendants’ Motion. 12 V. CONCLUSION 13 Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Stay 14 Proceedings. Dkt. # 30. All further proceedings in this case are STAYED indefinitely 15 pending a decision on Defendants’ interlocutory appeal filed under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a). 16 17 Dated this 11th day of June, 2025. 18 19 A 20 21 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26