Driver Pipeline Company, Inc. v. Stringer Construction Company, LLC

Filing 11

Memorandum Opinion and Order granting 7 MOTION to Compel Arbitration, denying as moot 5 MOTION to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 10/5/10 (LWE)

-FKB Driver Pipeline Company, Inc. v. Stringer Construction Company, LLC

Doc. 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI EASTERN DIVISION DRIVER PIPELINE COMPANY, INC. VS. PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10CV437TSL-FKB DEFENDANT

STRINGER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC CONSOLIDATED WITH STRINGER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC. VS. DRIVER PIPELINE COMPANY, INC., LEAF RIVER ENERGY CENTER, LLC, XYZ INDIVIDUALS, and ABC ENTITIES MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:10CV147HTW-LRA

DEFENDANTS

In Civil Action No. 3:10CV437TSL-FKB, defendant Stringer Construction Company, LLC (Stringer), citing St. Paul Insurance Co. v. Trejo, 39 F.3d 585 (5th Cir. 1994), moved to dismiss the complaint for declaratory judgment brought against it by Driver Pipeline Company, Inc. (Driver) in favor of a separate action brought by Stringer against Driver in state court. Since the

filing of Stringer's motion, Stringer's state court suit has been removed to this court and consolidated with the case brought by Driver in this court. Stringer's motion to dismiss has thus

become moot and will therefore be denied. In both the suit brought by Driver and by Stringer, Driver has moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement contained in the work order/contract between Driver and

Dockets.Justia.com

Stringer which states, "[a]ll claims and disputes arising out of or relating to the project, the work, or this work order must be settled by arbitration under the Construction Industry Arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association." considering whether to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, a court must engage in a two-step analysis. Tittle v. Enron Corp., 463 F.3d 410, 418 (5th Cir. 2006). "First, In

a court must `determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute in question.'" Id. (quoting Webb v. Investacorp, Inc., 89 F.3d 252, 258 (5th Cir. 1996)). This inquiry asks whether

there is a valid arbitration agreement and whether the dispute at issue falls within the scope of that agreement. Id. "Second, a

court must determine `whether legal constraints external to the parties' agreement foreclose[ ] the arbitration of those claims.'" Id. (quoting Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, 473 U.S. 614, 105 S. Ct. 3346, 3355, 87 L. Ed. 2d 444 (1985)). In the case at bar, Stringer has not challenged the validity of the arbitration agreement or Driver's assertion that the parties' present dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement (and it clearly does). Nor has Stringer offered any Accordingly, the

basis for denying enforcement of the agreement. motion to compel arbitration will be granted.

Based on the foregoing, it is ordered that Stringer's motion to dismiss in Civil Action No. 3:10CV437TSL-FKB is denied. It is

2

further ordered that the motions to compel arbitration in both of the above-styled cases are granted, and it is ordered that this cause will be stayed pending arbitration. The Clerk of Court is

hereby directed to administratively close this action pending notification by the parties that arbitration proceedings have been completed. SO ORDERED this 5th day of October, 2010.

/s/Tom S. Lee UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3