Hays v. Mastec Network Solutions, LLC

Filing 15

ORDERED that MasTec Network Solutions, LLC's Motion to Compel Arbitration (Rec. Doc. 11 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff must submit his claims against MasTec to arbitration in accordance with the parties' Policy. It is FURTHER ORDERED that all proceedings in this matter are hereby STAYED pending the outcome of the arbitration. The Clerk of Court shall mark this action administratively closed for statistical purposes. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Reply (Rec. Doc. 14 ) is hereby DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier. (gec)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JAMES HAYS

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 18-3679

MASTEC NETWORK SOLUTIONS,
LLC

SECTION: “J”(2)

ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion to Compel Arbitration (Rec. Doc. 11)
filed by Defendant, MasTec Network Solutions, LLC (“MasTec”), and a
response

thereto

(“Plaintiff”).

(Rec.

Doc.

13)

filed

by

Plaintiff,

James

Hays

Having considered the motion and legal memoranda, the

record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the motion should
be GRANTED.

On April 6, 2018, Plaintiff, a former MasTec employee, filed
the

instant

collective

action

complaint

against

MasTec

for

allegedly violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§
201-219 (“FLSA”).
failed

to

pay

him

Essentially, Plaintiff alleges that MasTec
and

other

similarly

situated

employees

appropriate wages and overtime compensation as required under the
FLSA.

In its motion, MasTec seeks to have the Court order the

parties to arbitrate Plaintiff’s claims in accordance with their

Dispute Resolution Policy (“Policy”).

Plaintiff concedes that

arbitration is proper. 1
MasTec also argues that the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s
collective action complaint with prejudice.
agree.

The Court does not

The FAA requires district courts to “compel arbitration of

otherwise arbitrable claims, when a motion to compel arbitration
is made.” Sedco, Inc. v. Petroleos Mexicanos Mexican Nat'l Oil
Co., 767 F.2d 1140, 1147 n.20 (5th Cir. 1985). Section 3 of the
FAA provides:
If any suit or proceeding be brought in any of the courts
of the United States upon any issue referable to
arbitration under the agreement in writing for such
arbitration, the court in which such suit is pending,
upon being satisfied that the issue involved in such
suit or proceeding is referable to arbitration under
such an agreement, shall on application of one of the
parties stay the trial of 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. This provision is mandatory and demands a stay of
the proceedings, at the request of a party, if the dispute is
arbitrable and referred to arbitration. Tittle v. Enron Corp., 463
F.3d 410, 417 n.6 (5th Cir. 2006). When all of the issues raised
in the case are referable to arbitration, courts may dismiss,

1

Plaintiff acknowledges that he agreed to arbitrate certain
disputes, including, inter alia, “disputes regarding . . .
compensation . . . and claims arising under the Fair Labor
Standards Act. (Rec. Doc. 11-3) (emphasis added). Plaintiff also
acknowledges that he waived any right to proceed via a class,
collective, or representative action. Id.

rather than stay, the case. Alford v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.,
975

F.2d

1161,

1164

(5th

Cir.

1992).

However,

under

those

circumstances, dismissal is within the court's discretion; it is
not required. Apache Bohai Corp., LDC v. Texaco China, B.V., 330
F.3d 307, 311 n.9 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly,
IT

IS

HEREBY

ORDERED

that

MasTec’s

Motion

to

Compel

Arbitration (Rec. Doc. 11) is GRANTED. Plaintiff must submit his
claims

against

MasTec

to

arbitration

in

accordance

with

the

parties’ Policy.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all proceedings in this matter are
hereby STAYED pending the outcome of the arbitration. The Clerk of
Court

shall

mark

this

action

administratively

closed

for

statistical purposes.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Reply
(Rec. Doc. 14) is hereby DENIED as moot.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 22nd day of June, 2018.

_
______________________
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE