Terminix Intl Co LP, et al v. Crisel, et al

Filing 71

ORDER granting 68 Motion to Dismiss. This action is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on August 14, 2014. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION

THE TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL
COMPANY, L.P.; and TERMINIX
INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.

V.

PLAINTIFFS

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01065

GLENN CRISEL; and SHARON
REED-CRISEL

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ (“Terminix”) Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss. (ECF No.
68). Defendants have filed a response. (ECF No. 69). The Court finds this matter ripe for
consideration.
On July 29, 2005, Terminix filed this action requesting that the Court compel
Defendants’ claims to arbitration and stay the underlying state court action. Glenn Crisel and
Sharon Reed-Crisel v. The Terminix International, Inc., et al., Circuit Court of Union County,
Arkansas, Case No. CV-2-5-0264-4. Defendants maintained that the agreement to arbitrate was
unenforceable due to unconscionability. Defendants’ unconscionability arguments related to the
arbitration fees and expenses. The Court stayed this action pending the completion of discovery
in the state court action. (ECF No. 44 & 56). Specifically, the Court stayed the action to allow
Defendants the opportunity to obtain discovery relating to the alleged unconscionability of the
arbitration agreement.
Terminix states that it no longer seeks to resolve this matter through arbitration and
requests that this action be dismissed. Defendants argue that the dismissal should only be

allowed on two conditions: (1) that Terminix turn over the arbitration-related discovery that has
been ordered in the state court action and (2) that the dismissal be with prejudice.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), the Court finds that the motion
should be and hereby is GRANTED.

Because the dismissal of this Petition to Compel

Arbitration renders any arbitration-related discovery moot, the Court declines to condition the
dismissal on Terminix’s production of discovery. Terminix assures the Court that it will not
make any further attempts to compel the arbitration of Defendants’ claims (ECF No. 70, p. 9)
and states that it does not object to a dismissal with prejudice. Accordingly, this action is hereby
DISMISED WITH PREJUDICE. 1
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 14th day of August, 2014.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

1

Per Terminix’s request, the Court notes that this dismissal with prejudice should not be construed as an
adjudication of the merits of Terminix’s Petition to Compel Arbitration.