Miller v. FCA US LLC
ORDER: The parties' Joint Motion to Arbitrate (Doc. # 11 ) is granted. This action is referred to arbitration in accordance with the Retail Buyer's Order's arbitration provision. This action is stayed and administratively closed p ending the outcome of arbitration. The parties are directed to file a status with the Court on January 12, 2017, and every 90 days thereafter, or as soon as arbitration is concluded. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 10/14/2016. (DRW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 8:16-cv-2575-T-33AAS
FCA US LLC,
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of
the parties’ Joint Motion to Arbitrate (Doc. # 11), filed on
October 14, 2016. For the reasons that follow, the Court
grants the Motion.
September 6, 2016, against FCA US LLC, alleging FCA violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et
seq. and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, Fla.
Stat. § 559.55 et seq. (Doc. # 1). Thereafter, the Court
entered its Scheduling Order, which, among other things,
referred the action to mediation and set the deadline therefor
as January 30, 2017. (Doc. # 8). Both parties now move the
Court to refer the case to arbitration. (Doc. # 11).
Attached to the Motion is a document entitled, Retail
Buyer’s Order. (Id. at 13-14). That document includes the
following arbitration clause:
Any claim or dispute, whether in contract, tort,
statute or otherwise (including the interpretation
and scope of this Arbitration Provision, and the
arbitrability of the claim or dispute) between you
and us or our employees, agents, successors or
assigns, which arises out of or relates to your
credit application, purchase or condition of this
vehicle, this contract or any resulting transaction
or relationship (including any such relationship
with third parties who do not sign this contract)
shall, at your or our election, be resolved by
neutral binding arbitration and not by a court
(Id. at 14).
The Federal Arbitration Act provides that arbitration
provisions “evidencing a transaction involving commerce . .
. shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon
such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation
of the contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. The purpose of the FAA is to
“place Arbitration Clauses on the same footing as other
contracts . . . .” Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph,
531 U.S. 79, 89 (2000) (citation omitted). Furthermore, the
FAA “mandates that courts shall direct the parties to proceed
to arbitration on issues as to which an Arbitration Clause
has been signed.” Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470
U.S. 213, 218 (1985) (citation omitted).
Here, both parties agree the FAA controls and also
jointly request the Court refer the action to arbitration.
Upon review of the Motion, the Court agrees. Accordingly,
this matter is referred to arbitration in accordance with the
administratively closed pending the arbitration. The parties
are also relieved of their obligation to mediate under the
Court’s Scheduling Order in light of the fact that the parties
are conducting arbitration.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
The parties’ Joint Motion to Arbitrate (Doc. # 11) is
This action is referred to arbitration in accordance
with the Retail Buyer’s Order’s arbitration provision.
pending the outcome of arbitration.
The parties are directed to file a status with the Court
on January 12, 2017, and every 90 days thereafter, or as
soon as arbitration is concluded.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this
14th day of October, 2016.
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?