Khalil Abdul-Aziz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Enfin Corp., Hatch Bank, and Does 1–10
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
The court considered Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings in a civil action. The court granted the motion, finding that the parties clearly and unmistakably delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator, and stayed the case pending arbitration.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendants' motion to compel arbitration is granted.“Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration [Dkt. 19] and stays the case pending the completion of arbitration.” | agree with court The court applied the correct legal standard for determining whether arbitrability is delegated to the arbitrator. By finding a clear and unmistakable delegation, the court correctly concluded that the arbitrator, not the court, must decide the threshold issue of arbitrability. This follows established precedent, including the cited Ninth Circuit authority. |
The case is stayed pending the completion of arbitration.“Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration [Dkt. 19] and stays the case pending the completion of arbitration.” | agree with court Under the Federal Arbitration Act, once a court orders arbitration, it must stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the arbitration. The court correctly cited Smith v. Spizzirri for this proposition. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sound. It correctly identifies the threshold issue (delegation of arbitrability), applies the correct standard (clear and unmistakable), cites binding Ninth Circuit authority for the procedural consequence (court's inquiry ends), and cites Supreme Court authority for the stay. It does not need to reach the merits of the arbitration agreement because the delegation clause controls.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KHALIL ABDUL-AZIZ, individually and Case No.: 25-cv-001745-JO-AHG on behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ v. MOTION TO COMPEL 14 ARBITRATION AND STAY ENFIN CORP., HATCH BANK, and 15 PROCEEDINGS [DKT. 19] DOES 1–10, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 On October 23, 2025, the Court held oral argument on Defendants’ motion to compel 21 arbitration and stay proceedings pending the completion of arbitration. For the reasons 22 stated on the record, the Court finds that the parties clearly and unmistakably delegated the 23 threshold question of arbitrability to the arbitrator.1 Therefore, the Court grants 24 25 26 1 Because the arbitrator is the one to decide this question, the Court declines to reach the parties’ remaining arguments. See Fli-Lo Falcon, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 97 F.4th 1190, 1194 (9th Cir. 2024) 27 (if a court finds that the parties clearly and unmistakably delegated the issue of arbitrability, its inquiry ends). 28 | ||Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration [Dkt. 19] and stays the case pending the 2 completion of arbitration. See Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472, 478 (2024) (court must stay 3 || case while arbitration is pending). 4 5 6 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 || Dated: October 23, 2025 9 10 Honorable Jinsook Ohta United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28