Murdock et al v. Santander Consumer USA Inc. et al
Filing
77
ORDER adopting 74 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 52 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and MOTION to compel arbitration filed by Santander Consumer USA Inc. The Report and Recommendation 74 i s ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and the findings incorporated herein. Defendant Santander Consumer USA Inc.'s Motion to Compel Arbitration 52 is GRANTED. To the extent Defendant Santander seeks to have the case dismissed against it, the Court denies t hat request. This case is STAYED in its entirety pending notification by Plaintiffs and Defendant Santander that they have completed the arbitration process, and the stay is due to be lifted or the case is due to be dismissed. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 7/20/2016. (LMF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
DENISE MURDOCK and MYRTLE
MURDOCK,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No: 2:15-cv-268-FtM-38CM
SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.,
PATRICK K. WILLIS COMPANY INC.
D/B/A AMERICAN RECOVERY
SERVICE and ABS RECOVERY, INC.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Carol
Mirando's Report and Recommendation filed on June 23, 2016. (Doc. #74). Judge
Mirando recommends granting Defendant Santander Consumer USA Inc.'s Motion to
Compel Arbitration (Doc. #52) and staying this case pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 3. (Doc. #74).
Neither party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation and the time to
do so has expired. Thus, the Report and Recommendation is ripe for review.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's
report and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Williams v. Wainwright,
1
Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These
hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in
CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse,
recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their
websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. The
Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a
hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.
681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982).
In the absence of specific objections, there is no
requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993
F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings and recommendations, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge
reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See CooperHouston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
After independently examining the file and upon carefully considering Judge
Mirando's findings and recommendations, the Court accepts and adopts the Report and
Recommendation (Doc. #74). Accordingly, Plaintiffs and Defendant Santander shall
proceed to arbitration.
However, compelling arbitration raises another issue – whether the Court should
also stay Plaintiffs' non-arbitrable claims against Defendants Patrick K. Willis Company
Inc. and ABS Recovery, Inc., who are not parties to the subject arbitration agreement. It
is well settled that a district court has broad authority to stay proceedings incident to its
power to control its docket. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997); see also
Advanced Bodycare Sols., LLC v. Thione Int'l, Inc., 524 F.3d 1235, 1241 (11th Cir. 2008)
(“[D]istrict courts have inherent, discretionary authority to issue stays in many
circumstances[.]”).
Pertinent here, "[w]hen confronted with litigants advancing both
arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims . . . courts have discretion to stay nonarbitrable
claims." Klay v. All Defendants, 389 F.3d 1191, 1204 (11th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).
"In some cases, of course, it may be advisable to stay litigation among the nonarbitrating
parties pending the outcome of the arbitration. The decision is one left to the district court
. . . as a matter of its discretion to control its docket." Moses H. Cone Hosp. v. Mercury
2
Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 20 n.23 (1983); see also U.S. ex rel. Postel Erection Grp.,
L.L.C. v. Travelers Cas. & Ins. Co. of Am., No. 6:12-CV-182-ORL-37, 2012 WL 2505674,
at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 28, 2012) ("Regardless of whether a subcontractor is bound by an
arbitration clause, a subcontractor's claim against a surety on a payment bond may be
stayed pending arbitration between the primary contractor and the subcontractor.").
In this case, a stay of the entire case will promote judicial economy and efficiency.
Also, Plaintiffs' claims are commingled with the facts and circumstances being litigated in
the arbitration proceeding, and thus it is not feasible to proceed with Plaintiffs' state law
claims against Defendants Patrick K. Willis Company and ABS Recovery. See Klay, 389
F.3d at 1204 ("Crucial to this determination is whether arbitrable claims predominate or
whether the outcome of the nonarbitrable claims will depend upon the arbitrator's
decision.").
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #74) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED
and the findings incorporated herein.
(2) Defendant Santander Consumer USA Inc.'s Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc.
#52) is GRANTED. To the extent Defendant Santander seeks to have the case
dismissed against it, the Court denies that request.
(3) This case is STAYED in its entirety pending notification by Plaintiffs and
Defendant Santander that they have completed the arbitration process, and the
stay is due to be lifted or the case is due to be dismissed.
3
(4) Plaintiffs and Defendant Santander shall file a joint status report on or before
October 17, 2016, and every ninety (90) days thereafter until the conclusion
of arbitration.
(5) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to add a stay flag to the docket.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 20th day of July, 2016.
Copies: All Parties of Record
4
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?