Blyden v. Sydney Leasing Limited Partnership et al

Filing 11

ORDER DISMISSING CASE: As set forth in the attached Order, because the parties concede that all of plaintiff's claims must be arbitrated, and because no party has sought enforcement of any award in this court, no useful purpose will be served by granting a stay and this action is hereby DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. Ordered by Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf on 8/6/2012. (Mauskopf, Roslynn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------X
WINSTON BLYDEN,
Plaintiff,
- against -

ORDER
12-CV-921 (RRM)(RER)

SYDNEY LEASING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP et al.,
Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------------------X
MAUSKOPF, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Winston Blyden brings claims against his former employers Sydney Leasing
Limited Partnership, Brisbane Leasing Limited Partnership, Melbourne Leasing Limited
Partnership, and Wellington Leasing Limited Partnership, under various discrimination statutes:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e; the New York State Human Rights
Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296 (the “NYSHRL”); and the New York City Human Rights Law, New
York City Admin. Code § 8–107 (the “NYCHRL”). (Compl.¶ 1.) The action was removed to this
Court from New York State Supreme Court, Queens County, on February 27, 2012.
On March 5, 2012, defendants asked this Court to stay or dismiss this action and to compel
arbitration of plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9
U.S.C. §§ 3–4, in view of a collective bargaining agreement and side protocol governing plaintiff’s
claims. (See Doc. No. 7 and appendices.) On July 9, 2012, plaintiff’s counsel informed the Court
that “[u]pon a closer examination of the applicable law, plaintiff has decided not to oppose the
defendants’ motion for arbitration.” (Doc. No. 10.)
Because plaintiff does not deny that he must submit his claim to arbitration, defendants’
request to compel under 9 U.S.C. § 4 is moot. The only question remaining is whether to stay or
dismiss the action under 9 U.S.C. § 3, which states,

If any suit or proceeding be brought in any of the courts of the United States upon
any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for such arbitration,
the court in which such suit is pending, upon being satisfied that the issue involved
in such suit or proceeding is referable to arbitration under such an agreement, 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, providing the applicant
for the stay is not in default in proceeding with such arbitration.
Although § 3 contemplates only a stay of an action in favor of arbitration, district courts also
have the “discretion to dismiss - - rather than stay - - an action when all of the issues in it must be
arbitrated.” Milgrim v. Backroads, Inc., 142 F. Supp. 2d 471, 476 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), aff’d 91 Fed.
App’x 702 (2d Cir. 2002); see also Johnson v. Tishman Speyer Props., L.P., No. 09-CV1959(WHP), 2009 WL 3364038, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2009).
Because the parties concede that all of plaintiff’s claims must be arbitrated, and because no
party has sought enforcement of any award in this court, “no useful purpose will be served by
granting a stay” and the case may be dismissed. Lewis Tree Serv., Inc. v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 239 F.
Supp. 2d 332, 340 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).1 The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
August 3, 2012

1

Roslynn R. Mauskopf
____________________________________
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF
United States District Judge

Although the complaint also states claims against certain individuals not named in the case caption, all employees or
agents of the named employers, there is no indication that the complaint was ever served on those individuals and the
parties have not addressed them in any papers. In any case, the reasons for requiring arbitration against the corporate
defendants apply equally to employees or agents of those entities. See Ragone v. Atlantic Video at Manhattan Ctr., No.
07 Civ. 6084(JGK), 2008 WL 4058480, at *1 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2008) (citing Roby v. Corp. of Lloyd's, 996 F.2d
1353, 1360 (2d Cir. 1993)). Accordingly, dismissal against all defendants is appropriate.
2