Lofton et al v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Filing 28

ORDER granting 26 Motion to Amend Response to Motion to Compel Arbitration by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 12/05/12.(jjhsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02707-RPM
ALAN LOFTON and
ALNTCB, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
FedEx GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INCORPORATED,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION
_____________________________________________________________________
Upon review of Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Amend Response to Defendant’s
Motion to Compel Arbitration [26] filed December 4, 2012, it is
ORDERED that the motion is granted.
DATED: December 5, 2012
BY THE COURT:
s/Richard P. Matsch
________________________________
Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

NOTES FOR HEARING

Alan Lofton had a written contract with RPS, Inc., to deliver packages. It is
dated January 22, 2001, and is attached to the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.
In this case Lofton alleges that the contract was taken over by a corporation of his
formation ALNTCB, Inc., and his first claim for relief is that the defendant interfered with
the contractual relation between Lofton and his corporation when it determined that he
could not be a driver. That determination may be based on allegations of misconduct
between Lofton and Dawn Martin, an employee of the defendant. The plaintiffs filed
seven claims for relief. Lofton’s claims are first, tortious interference with contract;
second, defamation; third, constitutional rights to freedom of association and firearms;
and seven, implied contract and promissory estoppel. The defendant has filed a motion
to dismiss those claims for insufficiency of the allegations of the amended complaint.
The fourth, fifth and sixth claims are based on termination of contract and as to
those claims the defendant has filed a motion to compel arbitration.
The plaintiffs’ position is not clear as to the contracting party. If it is the
corporation, Alan Lofton would not be a party and including him in the contract claims is
inconsistent with the first claim for relief of interference. The defense to the motion to
arbitrate is that there is no written agreement between the corporation and the
defendant so there is no arbitration clause.

2

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

DATED: September 26th, 2012
BY THE COURT:
s/Richard P. Matsch
__________________________
Richard P. Matsch, Senior Judge

3