GARCIA et al v. TEMPOE, LLC et al
Filing
52
LETTER OPINION. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 5/21/18. (cm, )
Case 2:17-cv-02106-SDW-LDW Document 52 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 636
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CHAMBERS OF
MARTIN LUTHER KING COURTHOUSE
50 WALNUT ST.
NEWARK, NJ 07101
973-645-5903
SUSAN D. WIGENTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
May 21, 2018
Henry P. Wolfe, Esq.
The Wolf Law Firm LLC
1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
North Brunswick, NJ 08902
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Michael R. McDonald, Esq.
Kate Janukowicz, Esq.
Gibbons P.C.
One Gateway Center
Newark, NJ 07102
Counsel for Defendant
LETTER OPINION FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT
Re:
Garcia, et al. v. TEMPOE, LLC, et al.
Civil Action No. 17-2106 (SDW) (LDW)
Counsel:
Before this Court are Plaintiffs Alicia Garcia and Priscila Dominguez’s (collectively
“Plaintiffs”) Motion for Correction of Order Arising from Oversight or Omission, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 60(a), as it relates to this Court’s March 29, 2018 Order
(“March 29th Order”). This Court having considered the parties’ submissions and the March 29th
Order, decides this matter without oral argument pursuant to Rule 78. For the reasons discussed
below, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.
DISCUSSION
This Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the factual background and procedural
history in this matter and thus will summarize only those facts relevant to this motion. The March
29th Order and accompanying Opinion granted Defendant TEMPOE, LLC’s (“Defendant”) Motion
to Compel Arbitration. (ECF Nos. 47-48.) On April 23, 2018, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion
for Correction of Order Arising from Oversight or Omission, arguing that the March 29th Order
overlooked the portion of Defendant’s motion that requested either a stay or dismissal. (ECF No.
Case 2:17-cv-02106-SDW-LDW Document 52 Filed 05/21/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 637
49.) Plaintiffs express a preference for dismissal. (Id.) On May 1, 2018, Defendant opposed
Plaintiffs’ motion, and requested a stay during the pendency of the arbitrations. (ECF No. 50.)
Plaintiffs replied on May 14, 2018. (ECF No. 51.)
Rule 60(a) provides that “[t]he court may correct . . . a mistake arising from oversight or
omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(a). Upon review, the March 29th Order needs no correction. However, to the extent that its
effect is ambiguous to the parties, this Court will provide clarification. Given that Defendant’s
Motion to Compel Arbitration was granted, pursuant to § 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act, this
case is stayed until completion of the arbitrations. See 9 U.S.C. § 3 (“[U]pon being satisfied that
the issue involved in such suit or proceeding is referable to arbitration . . . [the court] shall on
application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in
accordance with the terms of the agreement[.]”).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Correction of Order is DENIED,
and Defendant’s request to stay the case is GRANTED. An appropriate Order follows.
/s/ Susan D. Wigenton
SUSAN D. WIGENTON, U.S.D.J
Orig: Clerk
cc:
Parties
Leda Dunn Wettre, U.S.M.J.
2
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?