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)

Download PDF
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?