Parsons v. KAG West, LLC et al

Filing 19

ORDER GRANTING 12 Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Order Staying the Case, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/10/2015. Status Report due within 120 days. The hearing on the Motion to Compel set for 6/17/2015 at 09:30 AM is VACATED. The Initial Scheduling Conference set for 7/22/2015 at 08:30 AM is VACATED. CASE STAYED. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BENJAMIN PARSONS,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

KAG WEST, LLC, et al.

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00538 --- JLT
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND ORDER
STAYING THE CASE
(Doc. 15)

Defendants.

15
16

Defendants moved the Court to remand the matter to arbitration and to either dismiss the

17
18

matter or to stay it pending resolution at arbitration. (Doc. 12) Plaintiff filed his notice of non-

19

opposition to the motion but requested the Court retain jurisdiction to enforce the judgment issued by

20

the arbitrator.1 (Doc. 17) Defendants oppose the Court retaining jurisdiction and assert that, should

21

the need for enforcement of the arbitrator’s decision arise in the future, the parties may “make use of

22

the appropriate procedures at that time, if necessary.” (Doc. 18 at 2)

23

The Federal Arbitration Act provides that written arbitration agreements “shall be valid,

24

irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of

25

any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. A party seeking to enforce arbitration agreement may petition the Court

26

for “an order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the

27

agreement.” 9 U.S.C. § 4.

28
1

In light of the notice of non-opposition, the hearing on the motion to compel arbitration is VACATED.

1

The Court’s role in applying the FAA is “limited to determining whether a valid agreement to

2

arbitrate exists and, if so, whether the agreement encompasses the dispute as issue.” Lifescan, Inc. v.

3

Premier Diabetic Servs., Inc., 363 F.3d 1010, 1012 (9th Cir. 2004). To determine whether an

4

arbitration agreement encompasses particular claims, the Court looks to the plain language of the

5

agreement, and “[i]n the absence of any express provision excluding a particular grievance from

6

arbitration . . . only the most forceful evidence of a purpose to exclude the claim from arbitration can

7

prevail.” United Steelworkers of Am. v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 584-86 (1960).

8

Because the FAA “is phrased in mandatory terms,” “the standard for demonstrating arbitrability is not

9

a high one [and] a district court has little discretion to deny an arbitration motion.” Republic of

10

Nicaragua v. Standard Fruit Co., 937 F.2d 469, 475 (9th Cir. 1991).

11

“[A]ny doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of

12

arbitration.” Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25 (1983). As a

13

result, arbitration should only be denied when “it may be said with positive assurance that the

14

arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.” AT&T Tech.,

15

Inc. v. Communs. Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 650 (1986). It is well-established that “arbitration

16

provides a forum for resolving disputes more expeditiously and with greater flexibility than litigation.”

17

Lifescan, 363 F.3d at 1011.

18

Here, there is no dispute that the claims are subject to arbitration. (Doc. 17) The dispute

19

concerns only whether this matter should be dismissed or stayed.2 Notably, the arbitration agreement

20

does not contain consent by both parties that the arbitration award be confirmed. This would weigh in

21

favor of dismissal of the action. However, the parties have agreed the arbitration is binding. (Doc. 12-

22

2 at 4) This confers power on the Court to confirm the award. Stater Bros. Markets v. Int'l Bhd. of

23

Teamsters, Local 63 ex rel. Lukenbill, 2013 WL 3449761, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 3, 2013). Likewise,

24

the parties have agreed they will undergo arbitration according to the rules of AAA. Those rules

25

permit confirmation of the award. “Employment Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures” Rule

26

42(c) [“Parties to these procedures shall be deemed to have consented that judgment upon the

27

arbitration award may be entered in any federal or state court having jurisdiction.”]; See Idea Nuova,

28
2

Under the FAA, the Court is authorized to the stay the matter. 9 U.S.C. § 3.

1

Inc. v. GM Licensing Grp., Inc., 617 F.3d 177, 181 (2d Cir. 2010) [consent to AAA rules equates to

2

consent for confirmation of the arbitration award]. These factors weigh in favor of staying the action.

3

Indeed, the Seventh Circuit has adopted the view that a stay is the most reasonable approach:

4

“[I]t would be “wasteful” and inconsistent “with principles of judicial economy” for a court which has

5

jurisdiction of the parties to be required to dismiss the parties, and to compel one of them to sue in

6

another forum to enforce its award under § 9. In this case, identical reasoning leads to the conclusion

7

that it is wasteful and uneconomical for the district court, which has jurisdiction of the parties, to

8

dismiss them and compel one of them to sue in another forum to vacate an award under § 10.” Denver

9

& Rio Grande W. R. Co. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 868 F. Supp. 1244, 1250 (D. Kan. 1994) aff'd, 119 F.3d

10

847 (10th Cir. 1997) and aff'd, 119 F.3d 847 (10th Cir. 1997) quoting In re VMS Sec. Litig., 21 F.3d

11

139, 145 (7th Cir. 1994). The Court agrees.

12

ORDER

13

For these reasons, the Court ORDERS:

14

1.

The motion to compel arbitration (Doc. 12) is GRANTED;

15

2.

The matter is STAYED pending completion of the arbitration;

16

3.

Every 120 days and no later than 30 days after the entry of the arbitrator’s award, the

17

parties SHALL file a joint statement setting forth the progress of the mediation.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 10, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE