Kargbo v. Fedex Ground Package Systems, Inc.
Filing
15
ORDER Denying 13 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint a Neutral Arbitrator. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff initiate arbitration within 14 days of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court administratively close this action subject to reopening on completion of arbitration. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 7/10/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
11
ABU-BAKARR KARGBO ,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
Case No. 2:09-CV-02152-KJD-GWF
FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE
SYSTEMS, INC. ,
ORDER
15
Defendant.
16
17
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint a Neutral Arbitrator (#13).
18
Defendant filed a response in opposition (#14).
19
I. Background and Procedural History
20
On November 10, 2010, Plaintiff filed a claim alleging, among other claims, breach of
21
contract by wrongful termination. Plaintiff’s contract with Defendant explicitly requires arbitration in
22
accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association
23
(“AAA”). Response Exhibit A, Section 12.3. On September 29, 2010, this Court ordered the parties
24
to arbitration on Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, staying the remaining claim pending the
25
arbitration. The arbitration process has not been initiated. Rather, the parties have engaged in a series
26
of correspondence which has failed to result in any progress toward arbitration. Response (#14)
1
Exhibits B-F. Plaintiff brings the instant motion to appoint an arbitrator suggesting that the parties
2
are at “an impasse.” Motion at 3.
3
II. Analysis
4
Courts must read a clear and unambiguous contractual provision according to its plain
5
meaning. See Eichelman v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 711 A.2d 1006, 1008 (1998). Paragraph 12.3(b)
6
requires that the parties select an arbitrator “chosen pursuant to the procedures of the AAA.” The
7
language of the contract is clear and unambiguous. Plaintiff must therefore select an arbitrator in
8
accordance with the procedures of the AAA.
9
10
11
12
Further, as noted by the Nevada Supreme Court:
[e]very court has the inherent power, in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, to dismiss
a cause for want of prosecution. The duty rests upon the plaintiff to use diligence and to
expedite his case to a final determination. The decision of a trial court in dismissing a cause
for lack of prosecution will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is made to appear that there
has been a gross abuse of discretion…The element necessary to justify dismissal for failure to
prosecute is lack of diligence whether individually or through counsel.
13
14
Walls v. Brewster, 112 Nev. 175, 178, (1996) (internal citations and alterations omitted).
15
Plaintiff allowed an entire year, less twenty days, to elapse between this Court’s Order
16
requiring arbitration and the instant motion seeking court-appointment of an arbitrator. In the interim,
17
no substantive action has been taken to resolve this issue and comply with this Court’s Order. While
18
the Court has not yet dismissed Plaintiff’s claim for lack of diligence, considerations of judicial
19
economy suggest such action. Accordingly, Plaintiff has fourteen (14) days in which to initiate the
20
arbitration process in accordance with the procedures of the AAA. Should Plaintiff fail to do so, his
21
claims will be dismissed with prejudice.
22
III. Conclusion
23
24
25
26
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint a Neutral
Arbitrator is DENIED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff initiate arbitration within fourteen (14) days of
this order;
2
1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court administratively close this action,
2
subject to reopening on completion of arbitration.
3
DATED this 10th day of July 2012.
4
5
6
7
_____________________________
Kent J. Dawson
United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
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?