Scott v. Youth Villages, Inc.

Filing 17

ORDER finding as moot 16 Motion to Dismiss because Plaintiff's untimely filing is excused. Defendant is directed to file a response to Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate 15 that addresses its merits. Signed by Chief District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on November 18, 2022. (pb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
DARRELL SCOTT
V.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-CV-33-DPJ-FKB

YOUTH VILLAGES, INC.

DEFENDANT
ORDER

This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff Darrell Scott’s Motion to Vacate Arbitration
Award [15] and Defendant Youth Villages, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss [16]. The Court construes
Youth Villages’ motion to dismiss as a response in opposition to Scott’s motion to vacate. See,
Wanken v. Wanken, 451 F. App’x 319, 323 (5th Cir. 2011). For the reasons stated below, the
Court orders Youth Villages to file a response that addresses the merits of Scott’s motion to
vacate within 14 days.
On October 5, 2022, Scott filed a motion to vacate an arbitration award arguing various
grounds under the Federal Arbitration Act. See Pl.’s Mot. [12] at 11–12; see also 9 U.S.C. §
10(a) (outlining the statutory grounds for vacating an arbitration award). That same day, Youth
Villages filed a response to Scott’s motion saying that Scott failed to sign his motion. Def.’s
Resp. [13] at 1. In its October 26, 2022 Order, the Court instructed Scott to—within 14 days—
either refile a signed duplicate of his motion to vacate or sign the motion on file. Scott took the
former option, but his signed duplicate arrived on November 15, 2022, which is six days after the
November 9, 2022 due date.
In its response, Youth Villages asks the Court to deny Scott’s motion on timeliness
grounds. See Def.’s Resp. [16] at 1. The response also says that Scott’s motion is “substantively