Evans v. Momentum Telecom Inc
MEMORANDUM OPINION - Plaintiff Kokesia Evans and Defendant Momentum Telecom, Inc. jointly move for an order dismissing this action without prejudice to allow Evans to proceed in Arbitration with her claims against Momentum. (Doc. 17). Having considered the motion and finding the arbitration agreement enforceable,1 see 9 U.S.C. § 2, the motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge John H England, III on 1/20/2017. (KEK)
2017 Jan-20 AM 10:03
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MOMENTUM TELECOM, INC.,
Case No.: 2:16-cv-01764-JHE
Plaintiff Kokesia Evans and Defendant Momentum Telecom, Inc. jointly move for an
order dismissing this action without prejudice to allow Evans to proceed in Arbitration with her
claims against Momentum. (Doc. 17).
Having considered the motion and finding the arbitration agreement enforceable,1 see 9
U.S.C. § 2, the motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. Although 9 U.S.C. § 3 speaks in
terms of requiring a stay when an action is referred to arbitration, the weight of authority from
district courts within this Circuit (and other circuit courts of appeals) supports a dismissal of an
action when, due to an order compelling arbitration, there are no substantive claims left pending
before the district court. Halford v. Deer Valley Home Builders, Inc., No. 2:07cv180-ID(WO),
2007 WL 1229339 at *3 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 25, 2007); see also Clayton v. Woodmen of World Life
Ins. Soc., 981 F. Supp. 1447, 1451 (M.D. Ala. 1997); Dale v. Comcast Corp., 453 F. Supp. 2d
1367, 1378 (N.D. Ga. 2006) (citing Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc. v. BSR Tropicana Resort, Inc., 252
1 An arbitration agreement is specifically enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act if
the following requirements are met: (1) the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate claims;
(2) a nexus to interstate commerce; and (3) coverage of the claims by the arbitration clause. 9
U.S.C. § 2. Each of these elements is satisfied in this case. (See docs. 17 & 17-1)
F.3d 707, 709-10 (4th Cir. 2001)); Gilchrist v. Citifinancial Servs., Inc., No. 6:06cv1727-ORL31KRS, 2007 WL 177821, *4 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 19, 2007). Furthermore, although the Eleventh
Circuit has not directly addressed the propriety of dismissal in lieu of a stay under 9 U.S.C. §3, it
has “frequently affirmed where the district court compelled arbitration and dismissed the
underlying case.” Gilchrist, 2007 WL 177821 at *4 (citing Samadi v. MBNA Am. Bank, N.A.,
178 Fed. Appx. 863 (11th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 494 (2006); Caley v. Gulf Stream
Aerospace Corp., 428 F.3d 1359 (11th Cir. 2005); Jackson v. Cintas Corp., 425 F.3d 1313 (11th
Cir. 2005)). Accordingly, this action will be dismissed without prejudice.
A separate order will be entered.
DONE this 20th day of January, 2017.
JOHN H. ENGLAND, III
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?