Prosser v. Whayne & Sons Enterprises, Inc.

Filing 32

ORDER; 31 Unopposed Motion to Stay Pending Arbitration is GRANTED in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall administratively close this case., by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 1/8/15.(morti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01764-KLM
JOSEPH D. PROSSER,
Plaintiff,
v.
WHAYNE & SONS ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Stay Pending
Arbitration [#31]1 (the “Motion”). Plaintiff seeks a stay of this case while arbitration
proceedings are held. For the reasons set forth below, the unopposed Motion [#31] is
GRANTED in part.
Stays are generally disfavored in this District. See Wason Ranch Corp. v. Hecla
Mining Co., No. 07-cv-00267-EWN-MEH, 2007 WL 1655362, at *1 (D. Colo. June 6, 2007).
However, a stay may be appropriate in certain circumstances. For example, the Federal
Arbitration Act reflects a strong federal policy in favor of arbitration agreements.
McWilliams v. Logicon Inc., 143 F.3d 573, 576 (10th Cir. 1998). The Tenth Circuit Court
of Appeals has stated that there is a presumption in favor of arbitrability and that all doubts
as to the scope of arbitration must be resolved in favor of arbitrability. Id.

1

“[#31]” is an example of the convention the Court uses to identify the docket number
assigned to a specific paper by the Court’s case management and electronic case filing system
(CM/ECF). This convention is used throughout this Order.

-1-

The Court first determines whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists. Spahr v.
Secco, 330 F. 3d 1266, 1269 (10th Cir. 2003). “The Court shall hear the parties, and upon
being satisfied that the making of the agreement for arbitration or the failure to comply
therewith is not in issue, the Court shall make an order directing the parties to proceed to
arbitration in accordance with the terms of the agreement.” 9 U.S.C § 4. The standard for
determining the scope of arbitrability is liberally construed in favor of enforcing an
agreement to arbitrate. Moses H. Cohen Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Grp., 460 U.S.
1, 24-25 (1983). Once the Court determines that the claims are subject to an arbitration
agreement, the Court must stay “the action until such arbitration has been had in
accordance with the terms of the agreement, providing the applicant for the stay is not in
default in proceeding with such arbitration.” 9 U.S.C. § 3. If “all of [the] plaintiff’s claims are
subject to arbitration, under the FAA, [the Court] must stay litigation of the entire case
pending arbitration.” GATX Mgmt. Servs., LLC v. Weakland, 171 F. Supp. 2d 1159, 1167
(D. Colo. 2001).
Here, first, the parties agree and stipulate that the disputes in this litigation arise
from Plaintiff’s employment or separation of employment. Motion [#31] at 1. Second, the
parties further stipulate as to the existence of arbitration agreements relevant to this matter.
Id. at 2. Third, the parties stipulate that “the agreements set forth that all matters relating
to the employment of [Plaintiff] must be arbitrated.” Id. Based on the filings in this matter,
the Court finds no reason to disturb the parties’ stipulated agreements on these issues.
Accordingly, the Court must stay this matter pending the outcome of arbitration.2 See Elliott
2

The parties’ agreement regarding the need to arbitrate this dispute distinguishes the stay
requested in this matter from stays requested in matters where disputed motions to compel

-2-

v. Essex Motors, LLC, No. 12-cv-01078-REB-KLM, 2012 WL 4049844, at *1 (D. Colo. Sept.
13, 2012) (stating that “a stay is only required after a determination has been made that the
parties have a valid arbitration agreement” (citing 9 U.S.C. § 3 (stay only required by the
court “upon being satisfied that the issue involved . . . is referable to arbitration”);
Qualcomm Inc. v. Nokia Corp., 466 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (if district court
satisfied issue involved is arbitrable, then it must grant stay)).
However, although a stay of proceedings in this matter is warranted, the
circumstances presented here make this case eminently more suited for administrative
closure, given the fact that arbitration should resolve all outstanding issues. As stated
below:
[T]he Court concludes that . . . it is appropriate to stay this entire case
pending arbitration pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 3. [footnote omitted] [citation
omitted]. However, instead of a stay, the Court will administratively close this
case subject to reopening for good cause pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR.
41.2. Administrative closure is appropriate because the Court has stayed the
entire action and the length of time to complete the arbitration process is
unknown. See Lehman v. Revolution Portfolio LLC, 166 F.3d 389 (1st Cir.
1999) (noting that “an administrative closing has no effect other than to
remove a case from the court's active docket and . . . d[oes] not terminate the
underlying case, but, rather, place[s] it in inactive status until such time as the
judge, in his discretion or at the request of a party, cho[o]se[s] either to
reactivate it or to dispose of it with finality”).
Adams v. Modernad Media, LLC, No. 12-cv-00513-PAB-MEH, 2013 WL 674024, at *9 (D.

arbitration are pending. Compare Stone v. Vail Resorts Dev. Co., No. 09-cv-02081-WYD-KLM,
2010 WL 148278 (D. Colo. Jan. 7, 2010) (granting rare stay due to existence of class claims and
potentially onerous discovery during pendency of motion to compel arbitration which would likely
foreclose pursuit of class claims), with e.g., Lester v. Gene Exp, Inc., No. 09-cv-02648-REB-KLM,
2010 WL 743555 (D. Colo. Mar. 2, 2010) (denying stay during pendency of motion to compel
arbitration); Bushman Inv. Props., Ltd. v. DBSI E-470 East LLC, No. 09-cv-00674-MSK-KLM, 2010
WL 330224 (D. Colo. Jan. 20, 2010) (same); Orbitcom, Inc. v. Qwest Communs. Corp., No. 09-cv00181-WDM-KLM, 2009 WL 1668547 (D. Colo. June 15, 2009) (same).

-3-

Colo. Feb. 25, 2013). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#31] is GRANTED in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall administratively close this case.
See D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2 (“. . . [A] magistrate judge exercising consent jurisdiction may
order the clerk to close a civil action administratively subject to reopening for good
cause.”).3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than twenty days after the completion
of the arbitration proceedings, the parties shall file a Status Report in which they advise the
Court whether the parties believe the case should be reopened for good cause or whether
the case should be dismissed.

Dated: January 8, 2015

3

The undersigned exercises consent jurisdiction pursuant to the Court’s Pilot Program and
28 U.S.C. § 636(c). See Order of Reference [#24]; Consent to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge
[#23].

-4-