Ballantyne Brands, LLC v. Circle K Stores, Inc.
Filing
41
ORDER denying 32 Joint Motion for partial Voluntary Dismiss ; and granting 36 Motion for Partial Stay Pending Arbitration. The Court stays proceedings on all claims arising out of or related to the Pantry Contract for twelve (12) months from the date of this Order. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 3/22/17. (mga)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:16-CV-00513-FDW-DCK
BALLANTYNE BRANDS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CIRCLE K STORES, INC.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Partial Voluntary
Dismissal Without Prejudice (Doc. No. 32), the parties’ responses to the Court’s Order to show
cause why certain claims should not be dismissed with prejudice (Doc. Nos. 35, 37, and 40), and
Defendant’s Motion for Partial Stay Pending Arbitration (Doc. No. 36). The Court DENIES the
Joint Motion for Partial Voluntary Dismissal and GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Partial Stay.
The parties in this case assert claims and counterclaims arising out of two contracts: the
“Circle K Contract” and the “Pantry Contract.” Both parties agree that all claims arising out of or
related to the Pantry Contract should be settled by arbitration. Though the parties jointly requested
that this Court dismiss those claims without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), it was
unclear to the Court why the Court should not dismiss those claims with prejudice, and the Court
ordered the parties to show cause as to why dismissal with prejudice would be inappropriate.
Following additional briefing by the parties, the Court agrees with Defendant that a
voluntary dismissal with prejudice could operate as a final adjudication on the merits and preclude
arbitration of those claims. See Harrison v. Edison Bros. Apparel Stores, 924 F.2d 530, 534 (4th
Cir. 1991) (“A voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) is a complete
1
adjudication on the merits of the dismissed claim.”). Such a result, which would potentially leave
Defendant without any forum in which to pursue claims arising out of or related to the Pantry
Contract, would clearly prejudice Defendant.
The Fourth Circuit has “recognized that ‘[w]hen a valid agreement to arbitrate exists
between the parties and covers the matter in dispute, the FAA commands the federal courts to stay
any ongoing judicial proceedings and to compel arbitration.’” Aggarao v. MOL Ship Mgmt. Co.,
675 F.3d 355, 375 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting Hooters of Am., Inc. v. Phillips, 173 F.3d 933, 937
(4th Cir. 1999)).1 A stay of the claims arising out of or related to the Pantry Contract pending
arbitration of those claims would preserve the parties’ rights to have the Pantry Contract claims
decided on the merits, and it would preserve the Court’s jurisdiction over those claims in the event
it becomes necessary for the Court to enforce an arbitration award. Accordingly, the Court will
grant Defendant’s Motion for Partial Stay as detailed below.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The parties’ Joint Motion for partial Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice (Doc. No.
32) is DENIED;
2. Defendant’s Motion for Partial Stay Pending Arbitration (Doc. No. 36) is GRANTED.
The Court stays proceedings on all claims arising out of or related to the Pantry
Contract for twelve (12) months from the date of this Order.2 The parties shall submit
reports to the Court every ninety (90) days regarding the status of arbitration. Failure
The Fourth Circuit has also “acknowledged that ‘dismissal is a proper remedy when all of the issues presented in a
lawsuit are arbitrable,” Aggarao v. MOL Ship Mgmt. Co., 675 F.3d 355, 376 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting Choice Hotels
Int’l, Inc. v. BSR Tropicana Resort, Inc., 252 F.3d 707, 709-10 (4th Cir. 2001) (emphasis added), but as in Aggarao,
“that is not he situation presented here.” Id.
2
Twelve (12) months is the standard timeline for civil disputes brought before this Court. Standing Order
Governing Civil Case Management Before the Honorable Frank D. Whitney, Misc. No. 3:07-MC-47. The time limit
was put in place to protect all parties’ interests and promote judicial efficiency.
1
2
to do so will result in Court action; and
3. All claims that do not arise out of or relate to the Pantry Contract shall proceed pursuant
to the dates and deadlines set in the Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan (Doc.
No. 15).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: March 22, 2017
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?