SHAYANIFAR v. NORTHEAST TECHNICAL INSTITUTE

Filing 13

ORDER granting 8 Motion to Compel Arbitration and granting without prejudice 8 Motion to Dismiss. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (MFS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
MOHSEN SHAYANIFAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
NORTHEAST TECHNICAL
INSTITUTE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-00249-JAW

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR STAY AND COMPEL
ARBITRATION
I.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
A.

Procedural History

On August 15, 2012, Mohsen Shayanifar, acting pro se, filed a complaint in
this Court, alleging that Northeast Technical Institute (NTI) violated federal and
state employment discrimination laws and breached their employment contract.
Compl. (ECF No. 1). On September 7, 2012, NTI moved to dismiss or stay Mr.
Shayanifar’s Complaint and to compel arbitration. Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss or Stay
and Compel Arbitration (ECF No. 8). Mr. Shayanifar did not respond to NTI’s
motion.
B.

NTI’s Motion

In its Motion, NTI says that it provides short-term, comprehensive training
programs in a number of careers, including truck driving.

Id. at 2.

NTI

acknowledges that Mr. Shayanifar enrolled as a student at NTI’s Scarborough
campus in a four-week Class A Commercial Driver License (CDL) training program,

beginning March 8, 2012.

Id.

Upon enrollment, Mr. Shayanifar signed an

Enrollment Agreement with NTI, which contains an arbitration provision:
Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract, or
breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration administered by the
American Arbitration Association in accordance with its Commercial
(or other) Arbitration Rules (including the Consumer—Related
Disputes Supplementary Procedure), and judgment on the award
rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having
jurisdiction thereof. For more information on the arbitration please
visit: http://www.adr.og/consumer-arbitration.
Id. NTI asserts that this language controls Mr. Shayanifar’s participation in its
CDL program and that the Court should either dismiss this lawsuit or stay it and
should compel Mr. Shayanifar to submit to arbitration. Id. at 3-7.
II.

DISCUSSION
In general, agreements to arbitrate in contracts are enforceable under both

federal and state law. 9 U.S.C. § 2; 14 M.R.S. § 5927. In fact, under both federal
and state law, there is a liberal policy favoring arbitration agreements. Perry v.
Thomas, 482 U.S. 483, 489 (1987); Roosa v. Tillotson, 1997 ME 121, ¶ 3, 695 A.2d
1196, 1197. Although Mr. Shanyanifar claims that NTI discriminated against him
as an employee, it appears from the Enrollment Contract that Mr. Shanyanifar was
a student, not an employee. Def.’s Mot. Attach. 2 (Enrollment Agreement). For
purposes of NTI’s motion, however, it does not matter. The First Circuit and the
Maine Supreme Judicial court have held that employers and employees may agree
to submit employment discrimination claims to arbitration.

Soto-Fonalledas v.

Ritz-Carlton San Juan Hotel Spa & Casino, 640 F.3d 471, 476 (1st Cir. 2011);
Rosenberg v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 170 F.3d 1, 7-12 (1st Cir.
2

1999); Gove v. Career Sys. Dev. Corp., 824 F. Supp. 2d 205, 209 n.2 (D. Me. 2011);
Barrett v. McDonald Invs., Inc., 2005 ME 43, ¶ 16, 870 A.2d 146, 149-51.
To this end, the courts have posed two questions to determine the
enforceability of an arbitration clause: (1) whether there is a valid agreement to
arbitrate; and (2) whether the dispute in question falls within the scope of the
arbitration agreement.1 Combined Energies v. CCI, Inc., 514 F.3d 168, 171 (1st Cir.
2008); V.I.P., Inc. v. First Tree Dev. Limited Liability Co., 2001 ME 73, ¶ 4, 770 A.2d
95, 96.

Here, NTI has presented an Enrollment Agreement that purportedly

contains Mr. Shayanifar’s signature, Enrollment Agreement at 1, and the
arbitration clause is sufficiently broad to capture Mr. Shayanifar’s dispute with
NTI.
Once these questions are answered in favor of the party seeking arbitration,
federal law requires a court to “make an order directing the parties to proceed to
arbitration in accordance with the terms of the agreement.” KKW Enterprises, Inc.
v. Gloria Jean’s Gourmet Coffees Franchising Corp., 184 F.3d 42, 50 (1st Cir. 1999)
(quoting 9 U.S.C. § 4). There is an analogous state provision. 14 M.R.S. § 5928(1)
(“[T]he court shall order the parties to proceed with arbitration”).

If Mr. Shayanifar is correct in his allegation that he was employed by NTI and federal and
state employment discrimination statutes are implicated, there is a third requirement under First
Circuit law: that the agreement to arbitrate would be appropriate under the particular federal
statutory framework. See Gove,824 F. Supp. 2d at 209 n. 2 (citing Skirchak v. Dynamics Research
Corp., 508 F.3d 49, 58-59 (1st Cir. 2007)). Mr. Shayanifar’s employment discrimination claims would
pass that test. Rosenberg, 170 F.3d at 7-12.
A further inquiry under 9 U.S.C. § 3 is that the party seeking arbitration not have waived
the right to compel arbitration. Combined Energies, 514 F.3d at 171. There is no suggestion of
waiver here.
1

3

Accordingly the Court hereby ORDERS Mr. Shayanifar and Northeast
Technical Institute to proceed with arbitration of the dispute set forth in Moshen
Shayanifar’s Complaint.
The sole remaining question is whether the Court should stay this action or
dismiss it without prejudice. Here, absent any suggestion of prejudice to the parties
from a dismissal without prejudice, the Court elects to dismiss the Complaint
without prejudice so that the parties may resolve their dispute through the
arbitration and return to the Court, if necessary, once the arbitration proceeding
has been resolved.
III.

CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Northeast Technical Institute’s Motion to

Compel Arbitration and its Motion to Dismiss Mr. Shayanifar’s Complaint without
prejudice (ECF No. 8).
SO ORDERED.
John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 26th of November, 2012

4