Laprime v. Extra Space Storage, Inc. et al
Filing
38
ORDER AND REASONS granting 29 Motion to Stay; FURTHER ORDERED that this case is administratively closed. Any party may move to reopen this matter by written motion filed within 30 days of a final arbitration decision. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/7/2018. (blg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JANET LAPRIME
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
No. 18-4092
EXTRA SPACE STORAGE, INC. ET AL.
SECTION I
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is a motion, 1 filed by defendant Extra Space Management,
Inc. (“Extra Space”), to stay this litigation commenced by plaintiff Janet Laprime
(“Laprime”) pursuant to the parties’ arbitration agreement. The other defendants in
the lawsuit, Hexon II Ness, LLC and Federal Insurance Company (all together, “the
defendants”), joined Extra Space’s motion. 2 Laprime opposes the motion, asserting
that Extra Space’s arbitration clause is not applicable in this case. 3 For the following
reasons, the motion is granted.
I.
In January 2017, Laprime entered into a lease for a storage unit with Extra
Space. 4 Laprime alleges that on May 28, 2017, while she was at Extra Space Storage,
Inc., “a property owned and/or controlled and/or maintained and/or managed” by the
defendants, an elevator gate that served as the elevator’s door “suddenly” fell on her
head as she entered the elevator. 5 According to Laprime, she suffered severe injuries
as a result of the defendants’ negligence and, more specifically, the defendants’ failure
1
R. Doc. No. 29.
R. Doc. No. 32.
3
R. Doc. No. 33.
4
R. Doc. No. 29-1 & 29-2.
5
R. Doc. No. 13, at 2 ¶ II.
2
to properly maintain the premises. 6 Laprime filed her lawsuit in the 24th Judicial
District Court of Jefferson Parish in March 2018. 7 The lawsuit was removed to this
Court based on diversity jurisdiction. 8 Once all proper defendants were named and
joined, Extra Space filed this motion to stay this lawsuit pending arbitration
pursuant to its lease with Laprime. 9
II.
The Federal Arbitration Act (“the FAA”) “mandates the United States District
Courts to stay litigation in any case raising an issue referable to arbitration.” Atel
Mar. Inv’rs, LP v. Sea Mar Mgmt., L.L.C., 2010 WL 2102729, at *2 (E.D. La. May 25,
2010) (Africk, J.). 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 an 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. “To ascertain whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate a particular
claim, we must determine: (1) whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate
between the parties; and (2) whether the dispute in question falls within the scope of
that arbitration agreement.” Atel Mar. Inv’rs, 2010 WL 2102729, at *2 (quoting Pers.
Sec. & Safety Sys., Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 297 F.3d 388, 392 (5th Cir. 2002)). “The
6
R. Doc. No. 13, at 2 ¶ II, R. Doc. No. 1-2, at 4 ¶ 4.
R. Doc. No. 1-2, at 1.
8
R. Doc. No. 1.
9
R. Doc. Nos. 29 & 30.
7
2
FAA expresses a strong national policy favoring arbitration of disputes, and all
doubts concerning the arbitrability of claims should be resolved in favor of
arbitration.” Washington Mut. Fin. Grp., LLC v. Bailey, 364 F.3d 260, 263 (5th Cir.
2004) (quoting Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. Brown, 304 F.3d 469, 471 (5th Cir. 2002)).
Extra Space asserts that the issue in this case—Laprime’s alleged injury that
occurred on Extra Space’s property—is subject to the parties’ arbitration agreement.
The Court agrees.
It is clear that Laprime’s claim against defendants is subject to arbitration.
She does not argue that the arbitration clause is invalid.
Rather, Laprime
“acknowledges the lease agreement in question contains an arbitration clause, [but]
Plaintiff contends the clause should not be enforced as urged by Defendants.” 10
According to Laprime, “this lawsuit does not pertain in any way to the actual leasing
of a storage unit itself.” 11 Thus, the Court must determine only whether Laprime’s
cause of action is within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
An addendum to the lease contract provides that “Operator and Customer
agree to arbitrate all Claims between Operator and Customer.” 12
The contract
defines “Claims” as
any claims or controversies, at law or equity, against each other or
related in any way to or arising out of in any way to this Rental
Agreement, the Customer’s use or occupancy of the Space and the
Facility or any claim of bodily injury or property damage, or the
enforcement of any remedy under any law, ordinance, statute or
regulation, even if it arises after the Agreement has terminated. 13
10
R. Doc. No. 33, at 2.
Id.
12
R. Doc. No. 29-2, at 12.
13
Id., at ¶ 2.
11
3
The provision clearly covers Laprime’s claim. She asserts that her injuries are
the result of the defendants’ negligence. Her alleged “bodily injur[ies]” occurred while
she was “us[ing] or occup[ying] . . . the Facility,” as she was on Extra Space property
when the elevator gate allegedly fell on her head. The Court need not weigh the policy
favoring arbitration with these facts in order to determine that Laprime’s claims are
within the scope of her agreement with Extra Space.
III.
Laprime raised an alternative argument in her opposition to Extra Space’s
motion asking that the Court designate Jefferson Parish as the venue for
arbitration. 14 Extra Space consented to this request in a reply memorandum. 15
Therefore, the Court need not consider this argument.
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to stay is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is administratively closed. Any party
may move to reopen this matter by written motion filed within 30 days of a final arbitration
decision.
New Orleans, Louisiana, September 7, 2018.
_______________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
R. Doc. No. 33, at 3.
R. Doc. No. 37.
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?