Elsadig v Luxottica Retail North America Inc

Filing 23

Order Accepting 22 Findings and Recommendations. The court grants 12 Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration, denies the Motion to Stay Proceedings, orders the parties to arbitrate this action in accordance with the terms and provisions of the 2006 and 2011 Agreements, and dismisses this action with prejudice. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 7/31/2017) (epm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
MOHAMED ELSADIG,
Plaintiff,
v.
LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH
AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-2055-L

ORDER
Before the court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, to Stay
Proceedings and Compel Arbitration, filed October 6, 2016. On November 18, 2016, the court
referred the motion to the Honorable United States Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez for
hearing, if necessary, and for the United States Magistrate Judge to submit to the court proposed
findings and recommendations for disposition of the motion. The magistrate judge filed her
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation (“Report”) on July 10, 2017, recommending that the
motion should be granted, that the action be dismissed with prejudice and the parties be compelled
to arbitrate. No objections were filed to the Report.
The court, after considering the Report, record, and applicable law, concludes that findings
and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and they are accepted as those of the court.
The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provides for a stay pending arbitration. 9 U.S.C. §
3. A court, however, may dismiss the action with prejudice, rather than stay it, when all claims
are subject to arbitration. Alford v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 975 F.2d 1161, 1164 (5th Cir. 1992)
(“The weight of authority clearly supports dismissal of the case when all of the issues raised in the

Order – Page 1

district court must be submitted to arbitration.”) (citations omitted). This is so because “[a]ny
postarbitration remedies sought by the parties will not entail renewed consideration and
adjudication of the merits by the controversy but would be circumscribed to a judicial review of
the arbitrator’s award in the limited manner prescribed by law.” Id (citation omitted). The court
has reviewed the 2006 and 2011 Agreements, and all claims asserted in Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed
July 15, 2016, are subject to arbitration. Having determined that all of the issues raised by the
parties must be submitted to binding arbitration, and finding no other reason to retain jurisdiction
over this matter, the court, rather than stay and abate this action, will dismisses it with prejudice.
Id.
Accordingly, for the reasons herein stated, the court grants Defendant’s Motion to
Compel Arbitration, denies the Motion to Stay Proceedings, orders the parties to arbitrate this
action in accordance with the terms and provisions of the 2006 and 2011 Agreements, and
dismisses this action with prejudice.
It is so ordered this 31st day of July, 2017.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Order – Page 2