Scudieri v. Chapman Chevrolet Chandler LLC
Filing
28
ORDER AND OPINION granting 24 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Arbitration. The court orders the parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of their arbitration agreement. This case is dismissed. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 5/22/17. (LSP)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
3
4
5
Terrence Scudieri,
6
7
Plaintiff,
vs.
8
9
Chapman Chevrolet Chandler, LLC,
Defendant.
10
11
12
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:16-cv-01988 JWS
ORDER AND OPINION
[Re: Motion at Docket 24]
I. MOTION PRESENTED
13
14
At docket 24 defendant Chapman Chevrolet Chandler, LLC (“Chapman”) renews
15
its motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff Terrence Scudieri (“Scudieri”) opposes at
16
docket 26. Chapman replies at docket 27. Oral argument was not requested and
17
would not assist the court.
18
II. BACKGROUND
19
20
21
22
23
Chapman filed its first motion to compel arbitration at docket 5. The court denied
it without prejudice on October 25, 2016, because Scudieri’s declaration raised
sufficient fact questions going to whether the cost of arbitration would be so expensive
that ordering arbitration of the parties’ dispute would prevent him from being able to
24
25
vindicate his statutory rights.1 The court ordered the parties to propose a schedule for
26
27
28
1
Doc. 19.
-2-
1
2
limited pre-arbitration discovery and informed Chapman that it would entertain a
renewed motion to compel arbitration after discovery concluded.
3
4
The parties submitted a joint report on November 8, 2016, that outlined a
5
discovery schedule that would be completed by January 30, 2017. 2 The court approved
6
the parties’ schedule at docket 21. On January 4, 2017, Scudieri’s counsel, Michael
7
Zoldan (“Zoldan”), emailed Chapman’s counsel, Susanne E. Ingold (“Ingold”), to inquire
8
“about the possibility of foregoing the bifurcated discovery into the arbitration issue.” 3 If
9
10
Chapman was not interested in pursuing this possibility, Zoldan asked Ingold if they
11
could “discuss scheduling depositions and written discovery according to [the parties’]
12
November 8, 2016 report.” 4 According to Zoldan, Ingold did not respond. 5
13
After the window for pre-arbitration discovery closed without either party
14
15
conducting any discovery, Scudieri filed a motion asking the court to set a Rule 16
16
conference. Scudieri asserted that the case should proceed in court because, w ithout
17
discovery, Chapman could not meet its burden of showing that the dispute is subject to
18
arbitration.6 In response, Chapman renewed its motion to compel arbitration.
19
20
21
22
23
2
24
25
Doc. 21.
3
Doc. 22-1 at 2.
26
4
27
5
28
6
Id.
Doc. 22 at 2.
Id.
-3-
1
2
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Courts analyze motions to compel arbitration under either the Rule 12(b)(6) or
3
4
the Rule 56 standard of review, depending on the circumstances.7 The court previously
5
held that the Rule 12(b)(6) standard of review does not apply because Scudieri came
6
forth with sufficient “reliable evidence” to raise a fact question going to the validity of the
7
arbitration agreement.8 Thus, Chapman’s renewed motion to compel arbitration will be
8
judged under the summary judgment standard. 9
9
10
Summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine dispute as to any
11
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”10 The
12
materiality requirement ensures that “only disputes over facts that might affect the
13
outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary
14
15
judgment.”11 Ultimately, “summary judgment will not lie if the . . . evidence is such that
16
a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”12 However, summary
17
judgment is appropriate “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to
18
19
20
21
7
Guidotti v. Legal Helpers, 716 F.3d 764, 771–72 (3d Cir. 2013). See also The O.N.
Equity Sales Co. v. Thiers, 590 F. Supp. 2d 1208, 1211 (D. Ariz. 2008) (“The standard the court
applies in making the arbitrability determination is similar to the summary judgment standard,
and the court should review the record to determine if the party opposing arbitration has raised
any triable issue of fact.”) (citing Bensadoun v. Jobe-Riat, 316 F.3d 171, 175 (2d Cir. 2003)).
22
8
23
Guidotti, 716 F.3d at 774.
9
24
25
Id. at 776. See also id. at 775 n.6 (“The conversion of the standard for reviewing a
motion to compel arbitration mirrors the process provided by Rule 12(d) for converting a motion
to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment.”).
26
10
27
11
28
12
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
Id.
-4-
1
2
establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that
party will bear the burden of proof at trial.”13
3
The moving party has the burden of showing that there is no genuine dispute as
4
5
to any material fact.14 Where the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial
6
on a dispositive issue, the moving party need not present evidence to show that
7
summary judgment is warranted; it need only point out the lack of any genuine dispute
8
as to material fact.15 Once the moving party has met this burden, the nonmoving party
9
10
must set forth evidence of specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for
11
trial.16 All evidence presented by the non-movant must be believed for purposes of
12
summary judgment, and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in favor of the
13
non-movant.17 However, the non-moving party may not rest upon mere allegations or
14
15
denials, but must show that there is sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual
16
dispute to require a fact-finder to resolve the parties’ differing versions of the truth at
17
trial.18
18
IV. DISCUSSION
19
20
21
Chapman’s renewed motion argues that Scudieri is unable to establish that he
will likely incur prohibitively expensive arbitration costs because he squandered his
22
13
23
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
14
24
25
Id. at 323.
15
Id. at 323–25.
26
16
27
17
28
18
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248–49.
Id. at 255.
Id. at 248–49.
-5-
1
2
opportunity to take discovery. The court agrees. The only evidence that Scudieri points
to in his opposition is the same declaration he submitted in opposition to Chapman’s
3
4
previous motion. But, as the court made clear in its previous order, Scudieri’s
5
declaration is sufficient to preclude a ruling on the pleadings, but insufficient by itself to
6
satisfy Scudieri’s ultimate burden of proving the prohibitive nature of the arbitration
7
costs.19 Scudieri’s decision to forego discovery renders him unable to meet his burden.
8
In Green Tree, the Supreme Court held that a party resisting arbitration based on
9
10
the assertion that the arbitration costs will be prohibitive must support this assertion with
11
evidence showing “the actual costs and fees to which [it] would be subject in
12
arbitration.”20 If “[t]he record reveals only the arbitration agreement’s silence on the
13
subject, . . . that fact alone is plainly insufficient to render it unenforceable.”21 Because
14
15
Scudieri has no evidence showing the likely costs of arbitration, this case is factually
16
indistinguishable from Green Tree.
17
//
18
19
//
//
20
21
//
22
//
23
//
24
25
26
19
27
20
28
21
Doc. 19 at 6.
Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 91 n.6 (2000).
Id. at 91.
-6-
1
2
V. CONCLUSION
Based on the preceding discussion, Defendant’s motion at docket 24 is granted.
3
4
5
6
Pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 4, the court orders the parties to proceed to arbitration in
accordance with the terms of their arbitration agreement. This case is dismissed.
DATED this 22nd day of May 2017.
7
8
9
/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK
SENIOR JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7-
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?