Renteria-Camacho v. DirecTV, Inc.

Citations: 175 F. Supp. 3d 1308; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42667; 2016 WL 1261042Docket: CIVIL ACTION No. 14-2529-CM

Court: District Court, D. Kansas; March 30, 2016; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Plaintiff Rolando Renteria-Camacho has filed a lawsuit against DirecTV, Inc. and DirecTV, LLC, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) related to his employment as a technician from March 2009 to July 2011. During this period, he worked for subcontractors of DirecTV and received an IRS Form 1099. Upon becoming a W-2 employee of DirecTV in July 2011, he signed a Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims, which is a requirement for DirecTV's W-2 technicians.

Additionally, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana conditionally certified a class in the case Lang, et al. v. DirecTV, covering individuals who installed or serviced satellite equipment as alleged independent contractors from February 22, 2008, onwards. Renteria-Camacho joined this class by signing a consent form, though discrepancies exist regarding the spelling of his name on various documents.

A subsequent discovery questionnaire returned by Renteria-Camacho indicated his employment with DirecTV as a technician since July 2011 and confirmed he received a W-2. However, he did not address whether he signed an employment agreement. Following motions filed by the defendants, including for summary judgment and to decertify the class, Renteria-Camacho participated in opposing these motions. A joint motion to decertify the class was filed shortly thereafter.

On September 3, 2013, the court granted a joint motion to decertify the class in a prior litigation, allowing defendants to withdraw their motions for summary judgment and decertification. This decision dismissed the opt-in plaintiffs' claims without prejudice, permitting them to pursue individual claims while tolling the statute of limitations for sixty days. Subsequently, on November 1, 2013, within the tolling period, the plaintiff, identified as "Rolando Renteria-Camacho," joined over 200 others in filing a lawsuit in the Central District of California, Acfalle v. DirecTV, alleging unlawful deprivation of overtime compensation during his contract period from March 2009 to July 2011. The complaint did not indicate that he was a current W-2 employee of DirecTV and noted that he had opted into the Lang litigation.

On April 28, 2014, defendants in Acfalle filed motions to sever claims and transfer the case, which the plaintiffs opposed. On July 22, 2014, the court partially granted the motion to sever claims, dismissing the plaintiff from Acfalle but allowing him to refile his Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims within ninety days in a suitable jurisdiction. Following this, on October 20, 2014, the plaintiff filed a new complaint, reiterating allegations related to his contractor work between March 2009 and July 2011, again failing to mention his status as a W-2 employee for DirecTV. The complaint confirmed his participation in both Lang and Acfalle.

The defendant subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied, and the parties engaged in various procedural conferences. On April 6, 2015, a protective order was established, and the defendant filed an answer, followed by a motion to compel arbitration. The plaintiff's counsel asserted that DirecTV's counsel had not previously mentioned any arbitration agreement and that such an agreement was only produced on April 22, 2015. Plaintiff contended that the defendant waived its right to enforce the arbitration agreement, as waiver of arbitration rights can occur like any other contractual right, depending on the circumstances of the case.

The court must clarify any uncertainties regarding the waiver of arbitration rights, referencing established case law. To assess if a party has waived its right to arbitrate, the court considers several factors: 

1. Consistency of the party's actions with the right to arbitrate.
2. The extent to which litigation has progressed before a party expressed intent to arbitrate.
3. Proximity of the arbitration request to trial or any significant delays in seeking a stay.
4. Filing of a counterclaim without requesting a stay.
5. Engagement in judicial discovery that is unavailable in arbitration.
6. Any delay that may have affected, misled, or prejudiced the opposing party.

These factors are not exhaustive, and their application is not a strict numerical evaluation. In this case, the first two factors strongly indicate waiver. The plaintiff, employed by DirecTV and required to sign an arbitration agreement, indicated this during discovery. Instead of pursuing arbitration after this notification, the defendant opted to file for summary judgment and to decertify the class. The defendant's subsequent actions—including motions leading to the dismissal and re-filing of claims—further demonstrate an intent to litigate rather than arbitrate. Ultimately, the defendant's delay in requesting arbitration after acknowledging the applicability of the arbitration agreement shows inconsistency with the right to arbitrate and indicates substantial invocation of the litigation process.

The court concludes that the defendant waived its right to enforce arbitration despite not ruling on the motion for summary judgment, as filing the motion is inconsistent with a right to arbitrate. The court notes that the plaintiff's claims, although not advanced, have been before a court three times, indicating potential prejudice due to the defendant's delay in requesting arbitration. Key factors (3) and (6) support this finding, while factors (4) and (5) do not favor waiver. The defendant's claim of ignorance regarding the arbitration agreement is dismissed, as the Tenth Circuit has established that waiver in arbitration is not confined to intentional relinquishment of known rights. The plaintiff's discovery responses indicated current employment at DirecTV, which required arbitration agreements, thus putting the defendant on notice. Despite the defendant's argument regarding discrepancies in the plaintiff's names, the court finds that the existence of a W-2 employee supports the waiver conclusion. The defendant's failure to move for arbitration after the plaintiff refiled his claims further reinforces this finding. Consequently, the court denies DirecTV's Motion to Compel Arbitration. Additionally, it is noted that DirecTV, Inc. merged into DirecTV, LLC, making the latter the sole defendant.

Defendant consistently misspells the plaintiff's name as "Ronaldo Renteria-Camacho," whereas the correct name is "Rolando Renteria-Camacho," as evidenced by the complaint and the arbitration agreement. Plaintiff's counsel refers to him correctly, while the defendant does not dispute having received the plaintiff’s discovery questionnaire. On January 15, 2015, the plaintiff submitted a consent to join a collective action against DirecTV regarding claims not included in the current case, but the court finds this information irrelevant to the present issues. The plaintiff does not dispute the arbitration agreement's validity or its applicability to the claims in this lawsuit, nor is it deemed relevant that he did not indicate his status as a current W-2 employee of DirecTV, as his claims are unrelated to his current employment.