Augustin-Gerike v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Adopting 26 "Report and Recommendation" re 8 "Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b)(1); Or, Alternatively, To Compel Arbitration with Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof." Given that all remaining issues raised in the action are arbitrable, they must be submitted to arbitration for adjudication. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. Signed by Judge Pedro A. Delgado-Hernandez on 07/21/2014. (LMR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
MEIK A. AGUSTIN-GERIKE,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL NO. 14-1138 (PAD)

RENT-A-CENTER, INC.
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is defendant’s “Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b)(1);
Or, Alternatively, To Compel Arbitration with Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof” (Docket
No. 8), with a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) from Magistrate Judge Bruce McGiverin
recommending that the motion be granted (Docket No. 26). For the reasons explained below, the
Court adopts the R & R, grants the motion, compels the parties to submit to arbitration, and
dismisses the complaint.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Meik M. Augustin Gerike (“Agustin”) initiated this action against Rent-A-Center
Inc. (“RAC”) in the San Sebastian Part of the Court of First Instance of Puerto Rico: (1) claiming
to have been discriminated against and unjustly discharged from her employment with RAC in
violation of the Constitution of the United States, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Constitution of
Puerto Rico, and Puerto Rico Law No. 100 of June 30, 1959; and (2) seeking reinstatement, and
payment of damages, penalties, costs, expenses, fines, attorney’s fees, and in the alternative, of
indemnification under Puerto Rico Law No. 80 of 1976 (Docket No. 1, Exhibit 1).
RAC removed the action under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, pursuant to the procedure
set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (Docket No. 1), and subsequently moved to dismiss under Fed. R.

Meik M. Agustin Gerike v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.
Civil No. 14-1138 (PAD)
Memorandum and Order
Page 2

Civ. P.12(b)(1), or in the alternative, to compel arbitration (Docket No. 8). Augustin opposed the
motion (Docket No. 16), RAC replied (Docket No. 19), and Augustin sur-replied (Docket No.24).
On June 4, 2014, the Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Bruce McGiverin for a
hearing and report and recommendation (Docket No. 24). On June 27, 2014, the magistrate judge
recommended that RAC’s motion be granted, warning that failure to file specific objections within
fourteen days would constitute a waiver of the right to appellate review (Docket No. 26, at p. 8).
No objection has been filed.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Referral
A district court may refer a pending motion to a magistrate judge for a report and
recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Loc. Civ. Rule 72(b). Any
party adversely affected by the report and recommendation may file written objections within
fourteen days of being served with the magistrate judge’s report. Loc. Civ. Rule 72(d). See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
A party that files a timely objection is entitled to a de novo determination of “those portions
of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which specific objection is
made.” Ramos-Echevarria v. Pichis, Inc., 698 F.Supp.2d 262, 264 (D.P.R. 2010); Sylva v. Culebra
Dive Shop, 389 F.Supp.2d 189, 191-92 (D.P.R. 2005) (citing United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S.
667, 673 (1980)).
“Absent objection, . . .[a] district court ha[s] a right to assume that [the affected party]
agree[s] with the magistrate judge’s recommendation.” López-Mulero v. Vélez-Colón, 490
F.Supp.2d 214, 217-218 (D.P.R. 2007)(internal citations omitted). In reviewing an unopposed
report and recommendation, the court “needs only [to] satisfy itself by ascertaining that there is no

Meik M. Agustin Gerike v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.
Civil No. 14-1138 (PAD)
Memorandum and Order
Page 3

‘plain error’ on the face of the record.” López-Mulero, 490 F.Supp.2d at 218; see also,

Toro-

Méndez v. United States of America, 976 F.Supp.2d 79, 81 (D.P.R. 2013).
B. Recommendation
The magistrate judge recommended that RAC’s motion to compel arbitration be granted
(Docket No. 26, at 7). After a thorough analysis of the applicable law, he concluded that (i)
Augustin manifested objective consent to the arbitration agreement, (ii) a contract was clearly
formed by the parties, and (iii) any remaining issues regarding the validity of the arbitration
agreement must be referred to the arbitrator for resolution pursuant to the delegation provisions in
the parties’ agreement. Id. at p. 7.
The Court has made an independent examination of the entire record in this case and
determines that the magistrate judge’s findings are well supported in the record and the law.
Consequently, the Court hereby adopts the R & R in its entirety.
As to disposition, RAC’s motion asks for a dismissal or, in the alternative, to stay
proceedings and compel arbitration (Docket No. 8, at p. 12). Given that all remaining issues raised
in the action are arbitrable, they must be submitted to arbitration for adjudication. Therefore, the
parties are compelled to submit them to arbitration.
In these circumstances, no live controversies will remain before this court. Retaining
jurisdiction and staying the action would serve no purpose. See, Caguas Satellite Corp. v. Echostar
Satellite LLC, 824 F. Supp. 2d 309, 316-317 (D.P.R. 2011)(so noting). In light of the present case
posture, dismissal of the action is appropriate. This conclusion does not preclude ultimate judicial
review or enforcement of the arbitration award should the affected party consider it necessary.

Meik M. Agustin Gerike v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.
Civil No. 14-1138 (PAD)
Memorandum and Order
Page 4

Judgment shall be entered accordingly.
SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 21st day of June, 2014.
s/Pedro A. Delgado-Hernández
PEDRO A. DELGADO-HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge