Common use of Civ Clause in Contracts

Civ. P. 23, except for purposes of settlement. The history of this litigation is summarized in Part 1 of the Settlement Agreement. In brief, this case was filed on December 12, 2017 in California Superior Court, and Defendant removed 18 the case to this Court on January 11, 2018. Defendant asked the Court to compel the Plaintiff to arbitrate her claims individually. Plaintiff opposed the motion by arguing, inter alia, that the arbitration provision was unenforceable. After the Court held that the issue of enforceability was for the arbitrator to decide, granted ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’s motion to compel arbitration, and stayed the Litigation pending that the arbitrator’s decision, Plaintiff initiated arbitration. Plaintiff successfully argued that the arbitrator should refuse to hear the arbitration because the agreement was unenforceable. The Court confirmed the arbitrator’s decision. Defendant then moved to strike Plaintiff’s class allegations or deny certification of the Class. The Court denied that motion. The Parties engaged in significant discovery, including written discovery requests to, responses from, 27 and production of documents by, both parties. 28 On January 27, 2020, the Parties to this case participated in an all-day mediation conducted by the Honorable ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (▇▇▇’d) at JAMS in San Francisco, California. That mediation resulted in the Settlement that is the subject of this Order.