Maxson v. H&R Block, Inc.
Filing
41
ORDER granting 19 Motion to Compel.; granting 20 Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice.; denying as moot 23 Motion to Stay.; Case terminated. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 4/24/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
***
4
KIMBERLY A. MAXSON,
5
6
7
8
9
Plaintiff,
v.
H & R BLOCK, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 2:16-cv-00152-APG-CWH
ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION TO
COMPEL ARBITRATION, (2)
GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS,
AND (3) DENYING AS MOOT
MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
(ECF Nos. 19, 20, 23)
10
11
Defendant HRB Resources, LLC (incorrectly identified in the complaint as H&R Block,
12
Inc.) moves to compel arbitration and either to dismiss or to stay the case pending the results of
13
the arbitration. Plaintiff Kimberly Maxson asserts that she has not been given adequate time to
14
respond to HRB’s motions or to obtain legal counsel. She also argues that arbitration should not
15
be compelled because the events at issue in this case involve federal criminal violations, and
16
interested parties, such as the United States, would not be involved in the arbitration. She
17
requests a stay of the proceedings so that the alleged criminal conduct can be addressed. Finally,
18
she argues her complaint should not be dismissed because HRB fired her due to her disability and
19
medical restrictions. I grant the motion to compel arbitration, and I dismiss this case.
20
Maxson agreed to a Tax Professional Employment agreement which contains an
21
arbitration clause. ECF No. 19-2. That clause provides that the parties agree that covered claims
22
will be resolved through final and binding arbitration. Id. at 10. Covered claims include disputes
23
relating to Maxson’s hiring, “employment, compensation, benefits, and terms and conditions of
24
employment with the Company, or the termination thereof . . . .” Id. Certain statutory claims,
25
including claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), are specifically mentioned as
26
being subject to arbitration. Id. The arbitrator’s award is final, “[s]ubject to the parties’ right to
27
seek correction, modification, or vactur under the [Federal Arbitration Act].” Id. at 12. Maxson
28
1
could have opted out of the agreement by submitting a signed opt-out statement but she did not do
2
so. Id. at 3, 12.
The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) mandates that “district courts shall direct the parties to
3
4
proceed to arbitration on issues as to which an arbitration agreement has been signed.” Cox v.
5
Ocean View Hotel Corp., 533 F.3d 1114, 1119 (9th Cir. 2008) (emphasis in original). As a result,
6
the FAA limits the court’s involvement to “determining (1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate
7
exists and, if it does, (2) whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue.” Id. (quotation
8
omitted).
Maxson does not dispute that she entered into the arbitration agreement and she does not
9
10
offer any reason why that agreement is invalid. The agreement encompasses Maxson’s claims in
11
this case, which are related to her employment at, and termination from, HRB. ECF No. 1. The
12
fact that ADA and other employment-related claims would be subject to arbitration was
13
unambiguously set forth in the agreement. ECF No. 19-2 at 10.
Maxson’s argument that the arbitration should not proceed because the United States will
14
15
not be a party is unavailing. Nothing about enforcing the arbitration agreement will preclude
16
federal criminal charges from being investigated or initiated.
Finally, I deny Maxson’s request for a stay or for additional time to respond. Maxson
17
18
filed this case in January 2016. She thus has had over a year to obtain counsel. Likewise,
19
Maxson has had ample time to respond to HRB’s motions. The motions were filed in November
20
2016. Maxson received two extensions to file her response. ECF Nos. 31, 38. In the interim, she
21
has filed numerous lengthy documents. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 30, 32, 36, 37. She thus had plenty of
22
time to prepare a response to these motions.
23
Accordingly, I grant HRB’s motion to compel arbitration. Because all of Maxson’s
24
claims are subject to arbitration, I dismiss the case, without prejudice to either party later pursuing
25
their remedies under the FAA as set forth in the agreement. See Sparling v. Hoffman Const. Co.,
26
864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988).
27
////
28
Page 2 of 3
1
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant HRB Resources, LLC’s motion to compel
2
arbitration (ECF No. 19) and motion to dismiss (ECF No. 20) are GRANTED. Should plaintiff
3
Kimberly Maxson decide to pursue her claims against HRB Resources, LLC, she is compelled to
4
submit them to arbitration. The claims against defendant HRB Resources, LLC are dismissed
5
without prejudice and the clerk of court is instructed to close this case.
6
7
8
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant HRB Resources, LLC’s motion to stay
discovery (ECF No. 23) is DENIED as moot.
DATED this 24th day of April, 2017.
9
10
11
ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 3 of 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?