Dickson et al v. Gospel for ASIA, Inc. et al
Filing
56
OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 23 MOTION to Compel Arbitration and MOTION to Stay; and denying as moot 25 27 MOTIONS to Dismiss. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on November 28, 2018. (src)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
MATTHEW DICKSON and JENNIFER
DICKSON, each individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated
v.
PLAINTIFFS
No. 5:16-CV-05027
GOSPEL FOR ASIA, INC.; GOSPEL FOR
ASIA-INTERNATIONAL; K.P. YOHANNAN;
GISELA PUNNOSE; DANIEL PUNNOSE;
DAVID CARROLL; and PAT EMERICK
DEFENDANTS
OPINION AND ORDER
On January 18, 2017 the Court entered an opinion and order (Doc. 39) denying Defendants’
motions to compel arbitration and dismiss the case. The Court found that because the arbitration
agreements lacked mutuality of obligation and the dispute was outside the scope of those
agreements, arbitration should not be compelled. The Court then addressed the motions to dismiss
and denied them on the merits.
Defendants appealed, and the matter was stayed during the pendency of the appeal. On
November 27, 2018, the mandate (Doc. 55) of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals was entered on
the docket. The Court of Appeals reversed this Court, finding that mutuality of obligation existed
and the dispute was within the scope of the arbitration agreements. The Court of Appeals also
remanded for further proceedings.
No further proceedings are necessary. As the Court of Appeals has determined that binding
arbitration agreements exist and the parties’ disagreement falls within the scope of those
agreements, arbitration must be compelled. Because the arbitration agreement controls the entirety
of the dispute, the weight of authority supports dismissal of the action following entry of an order
compelling arbitration. See Green v. SuperShuttle Int’l, Inc., 653 F.3d 766, 769–70 (holding that
1
under a judicially-created exception to section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act, a court may, in its
discretion, dismiss an action in favor of arbitration where it is clear that the entire controversy will
be resolved by arbitration); accord Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc. v. BSR Tropicana Resort, Inc., 252
F.3d 707, 709–10 (4th Cir. 2001); Alford v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 975 F.2d 1161, 1163 (5th
Cir. 1992); Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 23) to compel arbitration and stay
is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED insofar as the
parties are ORDERED to engage in final and binding arbitration in accordance with the rules and
procedures set forth in the Uniform Arbitration Act. 1 The motion is DENIED insofar as no stay
will be entered.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions (Docs. 25 and 27) to dismiss are DENIED
AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Judgment will be entered accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of November, 2018.
/s/P. K. Holmes, ΙΙΙ
P.K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
1
The Court previously determined that the reference in the arbitration agreements to the
“Unified Arbitration Act” (Doc. 23-1, pp. 7, 10, 13) is clearly a scrivener’s error.
2
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?