Provow v. Nextel Retail Stores LLC et al

Filing 44

ORDER, The Court orders the parties to file supplemental briefs. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 3/23/2015. (jdh)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS KALEI PROVOW, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 14-cv-1156-JPG-PMF NEXTEL RETAIL STORES LLC, SPRINT CORPORATION and CLIFTON HATCHER, Defendants. ORDER This matter comes before the Court on the motions of defendants Nextel Retail Stores, LLC, Sprint Corporation and Clifton Hatcher to stay this case and compel plaintiff Kalei Provow to resolve this dispute through arbitration (Docs. 13 & 39). Provow has responded to the motions (Docs. 29 & 42), and the defendants have replied to her responses (Docs. 30 & 43). No party, however, has mentioned Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79 (2002), and its progeny, which appear to the Court to be relevant to this dispute. The Court believes further briefing is in order and ORDERS the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the relevance of Howsam and its progeny to the facts of this case and whether, in light of Howsam, Kemiron Atlantic Inc. v. Aguakem International, Inc., 290 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2002), remains good law. The Court strongly suggests the parties cite relevant cases from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which have been noticeably scarce in the briefing of this issue to date. The parties’ initial briefs shall be filed on or before April 10, 2015, as “supplements” to their existing briefing and shall not exceed ten pages. The parties’ response briefs shall be filed on or before April 17, 2015, and shall not exceed five pages. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: March 23, 2015 s/ J. Phil Gilbert J. PHIL GILBERT DISTRICT JUDGE

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?