Borodaenko v. Twitter, Inc.

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DMITRY BORODAENKO, et al., Case No. 22-cv-07226-HSG 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND 9 v. GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 10 TWITTER, INC., Re: Dkt. Nos. 14, 15 11 Defendant. 12 13 Pending before the Court are Defendant Twitter, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration and 14 motion to dismiss. Dkt. Nos. 14, 15. The Court finds these matters appropriate for disposition 15 without oral argument and the matters are deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the 16 reasons detailed below, the Court…