FORD v. COMBINED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA et al

Filing 32

ORDER COMPELLING ARBITRATION re adopting 27 Report and Recommendation; granting in part 4 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 14 Motion to Strike. The case will be dismissedby a judgment retaining jurisdiction to enforce th e order to arbitrate and retaining jurisdiction to enforce or set aside any arbitration awardunless the plaintiff files by October 19, 2017 a memorandum showing cause why the court should not so dismiss the case. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 9/27/2017. ( (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 10/19/2017). (jcw)

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
ROBERT H. FORD, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 5:17cv103-RH/GRJ

COMBINED INSURANCE COMPANY
OF AMERICA and BRIAN GRISWOLD,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER COMPELLING ARBITRATION
The defendant Combined Insurance Company of America has moved to
compel arbitration and to dismiss. The motion is before the court on the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation, ECF No. 27, and the plaintiff’s objections,
ECF Nos. 28 and 31. I have reviewed de novo the issues raised by the objections.
The report and recommendation correctly concludes that the plaintiff signed
a binding arbitration agreement that applies to the plaintiff’s claims in this lawsuit
and that arbitration should be compelled.
In the plaintiff’s first set of objections, he says, “the signature (in block
form) appears to be forged on the arbitration agreement.” ECF No. 28 at 3

Case No. 5:17cv103-RH/GRJ

Page 2 of 4

(emphasis added). This may be a scrivener’s error. The plaintiff asserted
previously only that the signature on the separate employment agreement was
forged. That signature was in block form. The signature on the arbitration
agreement was not in block form. More importantly, in the affidavit the plaintiff
filed before entry of the report and recommendation, the plaintiff admitted that he
signed the arbitration agreement. The affidavit said the “arbitration addendum”
was “signed by me.” ECF No. 9 at 3. The affidavit attached the arbitration
agreement and specifically cited a page with what appears to be—and the plaintiff
admitted is—the plaintiff’s signature. The plaintiff has not raised a genuine dispute
about the validity of this signature.
To be sure, the affidavit also said the signature was dated not by the plaintiff
but by someone else and that the date was not accurate. The arbitration
agreement’s signature page, as attached to the affidavit, included a notation next to
the date: “Not my handwriting.” There was no such notation next to the signature.
ECF No. 9 at 40.
It makes no difference who wrote the date on the arbitration agreement or
whether the date was accurate. The controlling point is that the plaintiff signed the
arbitration agreement. The plaintiff opposes arbitration on other grounds, but none
withstand analysis, as shown by the report and recommendation. This order
compels arbitration.

Case No. 5:17cv103-RH/GRJ

Page 3 of 4

If the case is stayed but remains pending, the parties will be required to file
periodic status reports. But there is no apparent reason why the case should not be
dismissed, rather than stayed. This order gives the plaintiff an opportunity to
address this issue. If he does not respond, the case will be dismissed in an order
that retains jurisdiction to enforce the order compelling arbitration and retains
jurisdiction to enforce or set aside any arbitration award.
For these reasons and those set out in the report and recommendation,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as the court’s
further opinion.
2. The motion to compel arbitration, ECF No. 4, is granted in part. The
parties must present their dispute to arbitration in accordance with the agreement
that was entered before the dispute arose.
3. The case will be dismissed—by a judgment retaining jurisdiction to
enforce the order to arbitrate and retaining jurisdiction to enforce or set aside any
arbitration award—unless the plaintiff files by October 19, 2017 a memorandum
showing cause why the court should not so dismiss the case.

Case No. 5:17cv103-RH/GRJ

Page 4 of 4

4. The motion, ECF No. 14, to strike parts of the plaintiff’s affidavit is
denied as moot.
SO ORDERED on September 27, 2017.
s/Robert L. Hinkle
United States District Judge

Case No. 5:17cv103-RH/GRJ