Peloquin et al v. Tesla, Inc.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LINDA PELOQUIN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TESLA, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-06690-AMO
ORDER FINDING MOTION LACKING
CERTIFICATION; DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
Re: Dkt. No. 18
On October 31, 2025, Defendant Tesla, Inc., filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay
proceedings, but Tesla failed to file a certification that the party had met and conferred with
Plaintiff Ozell Murray as required by this Court’s Standing Order in Civil Cases. The order
provides:
All parties are advised that effective Monday, October 20, 2025, the
judiciary will run out of funding and only limited operations will
continue. See
https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/judiciarynews/2025/10/17/judi
ciary-funding-runs-out-only-limited-operations-continue?utm_camp
aign=uscnews&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery. As
a consequence, court staff will not be paid despite the requirement to
work on essential matters.
Accordingly, until the judiciary is funded, parties shall meet and
confer before filing any substantive motion. The parties shall
determine whether the litigation can proceed without the motion or
whether the motion must be urgently resolved. If the latter, lead
trial counsel shall file a certification attesting to the same with the
filing of any substantive motion. Failure to provide the certification
will result in a sua sponte denial without prejudice. This
requirement does not apply to administrative or ministerial motions.
The Court appreciates the parties’ cooperation during this period.
//
//
Case 3:25-cv-06690-AMO Document 20 Filed 11/04/25 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District
 Court
Northern District of California
Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice, and Docket No. 18 is terminated.
Further, the inclusion of declarations and exhibits along with the memorandum in support
of Tesla’s motion in Docket No. 18 totaled 142 pages of difficult to parse materials. For the
convenience of the Court and the litigants, counsel shall avoid submitting papers as a single
document where declarations and exhibits can appropriately be separated for filing on ECF.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 4, 2025
ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-06690-AMO Document 20 Filed 11/04/25 Page 2 of 2