Ross v. Fresh Market

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn on 8/10/15. (MRR)

FILED
2015 Aug-11 AM 10:49
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANNETTE ROSS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE FRESH MARKET, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case Number 2:13-CV-1524-SLB

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case is before the court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Under Rules 12(b)(5)
and 12(b)(6) or, in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration. (Doc. 9.)1
Defendant contends that the parties’ dispute is subject to a binding arbitration agreement.
(Id. at 4.) Plaintiff did not file any opposition to defendant’s motion. For the reasons set
forth below, defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration will be granted and its
Motion to Dismiss Under Rules 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6), will be denied as moot.
Plaintiff Annette Ross and defendant, The Fresh Market, her former employer, entered
into an Agreement to Resolve Claims, in which they “agree[d] to [a] dispute resolution
procedure with respect to any dispute relating to a term or condition of employment.” (Doc.
10-2 at 2.) The Agreement required the parties “to submit to arbitration.” (Id.) Also, the

1

Reference to a document number, [“Doc. ___”], refers to the number assigned to each
document as it is filed in the court’s record.

Agreement states that it “is a waiver of the right to jury trial on claims that would otherwise
be brought in court.” (Id.)
The court finds that plaintiff entered into a binding arbitration agreement with
defendant. Therefore, defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration, (doc. 9), will
be granted and plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.2 Its Motion to
Dismiss Under Rules 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6) will be denied as moot.
An Order granting in part and denying in part defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

2

Dismissal without prejudice is appropriate when all the claims alleged in the
Complaint are subject to the arbitration agreement:
While 9 U.S.C. § 3 provides that a district court “shall on application
of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until . . . arbitration has been
had in accordance with the terms of the agreement,” courts have determined
that this rule “was not intended to limit dismissal of a case in the proper
circumstances. The weight of authority clearly supports dismissal of the case
when all of the issues raised in the district court must be submitted to
arbitration.” Alford v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 975 F.2d 1161, 1164 (5th
Cir. 1992)(emphasis original); see also Lloyd v. Hovensa, LLC, 369 F.3d 263,
269 (3d Cir. 2004)(discussing split of authority among the circuits). The
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has not directly
addressed this issue, but has frequently affirmed where the district court
compelled arbitration and dismissed the underlying case. See, e.g., Samadi v.
MBNA Am. Bank, N.A., 178 Fed. Appx. 863 (11th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127
S. Ct. 494 (2006); Caley v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 428 F.3d 1359 (11th
Cir. 2005); Jackson v. Cintas Corp., 425 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2005).
Therefore, it appears that the Eleventh Circuit would permit the dismissal of
an action in which all of the claims are subject to arbitration.
Gilchrist v. Citifinancial Services, Inc.334, No. 6:06-cv-1727-Orl-31KRS, 2007 WL 177821,
*4 (M.D. Fla. 2007).
2

Under Rules 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6) or, in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss and Compel
Arbitration, (doc. 9), will be entered contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion.
DONE this 10th day of August, 2015.

SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3