J.M. and M.M., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. MULTI MEDIA, LLC d/b/a CHATURBATE
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court ordered supplemental briefing on the unconscionability of a fee-shifting provision in an arbitration agreement, citing two cases not previously raised by the parties. The court required each party to submit a three-page brief by May 22, 2026, addressing the application of Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. and Tompkins v. 23andMe, Inc.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order for supplemental briefing“The Court therefore ORDERS that each party submit a supplemental brief of no more than three (3) pages by May 22, 2026 regarding these two cases and whether, or how, they apply to the fee-shifting provision here.” | agree with court The court exercised its inherent authority to ensure the proper application of law by identifying relevant precedent not cited by the parties. This is a procedural mechanism to facilitate a correct decision on the merits of the unconscionability claim, which is a standard and appropriate judicial function. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the court's independent duty to apply the law and cites two highly relevant, binding (for the Ninth Circuit) and persuasive (for California state law) authorities that directly address the specific legal issue of fee-shifting unconscionability in consumer arbitration agreements. The order does not decide the merits but appropriately directs the parties to brief the issue, ensuring a well-informed decision.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 J.M. and M.M., on behalf of themselves Case No.: 3:25-cv-01672-CAB-SBC and all others similarly situated, 14 ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL Plaintiffs, 15 BRIEFING v. 16 MULTI MEDIA, LLC d/b/a 17 CHATURBATE, 18 Defendant. 19 20 “Regardless of whether a party finds and cites to relevant authority, this Court has 21 an independent duty to research and properly apply the law.” Baylon v. Wells Fargo Bank, 22 N.A., 303 F. Supp. 3d 1160, 1165 (D.N.M. 2018). Here, the Court has identified two 23 relevant cases—Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC, 61 Cal. 4th 899 (2015) and 24 Tompkins v. 23andMe, Inc., 840 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2016)—which neither Party cites 25 concerning whether a fee-shifting provision in a consumer-related arbitration agreement is 26 unconscionable. 27 /// 28 /// 1 The Court therefore ORDERS that each party submit a supplemental brief of no 2 more than three (3) pages by May 22, 2026 regarding these two cases and whether, or how, 3 || they apply to the fee-shifting provision here. 4 Itis SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: May 4, 2026 © 6 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Cites, in this corpus
- Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. S199119 · 2015-08-03