Legal Opinion
Najib A. Hodge v. NAPA Genuine Auto Parts, et al.
District Court, D. Arizona
Decided March 18, 2026No. 2:25-cv-02242Unknown
1Opinion
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Najib A. Hodge, No. CV-25-02242-PHX-JAT 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 NAPA Genuine Auto Parts, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Defendant DoorDash, Inc.’s (“DoorDash”) Motion to 16 Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings (Doc. 29). Plaintiff Najib A. Hodge filed a 17 Response in Opposition to DoorDash’s Motion (Doc. 38), and DoorDash filed a Reply 18 (Doc. 39). The Court now rules. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 A. Factual Background 21 DoorDash is a technology company that facilitates the…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Henderson v. DuncanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Chiron Corporation, a Delaware Corporation v. Ortho Diagnostic Systems, Inc., a New Jersey CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- Meyer v. Uber Technologies, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2017
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.