Smith v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc. (Reed Group)
Filing
24
Memorandum Opinion and Order: The court ORDERS that plaintiff's first amended opposed motion 21 to compel arbitration and to dismiss be, and is hereby, granted; that plaintiff's claim against defendant be, and is hereby, dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (1); and, that the parties are ORDERED to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the agreement between them. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 5/15/2018) (edm)
(-~-'-"~-·~-~-~-~--,--~----,•-n·--~~
i
i
!
IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRIC~
I
U.S. DlSTHICT COURT
-1
1'J0It11-II::F!_f-J D;:-~TPT('":' "'P ')~"-- \ c; I
r·r~
COUR;-- J"'.
§
·-)
i
CL.t,;·U(, U.S. DJSlR!Cf COTnZT
~·-·---------_
_ --,D:;:e:::pl:::llY-_-.-.·--=-~--~------
§
VS.
§
§
SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC.
(REED GROUP) ,
§
NO. 4:18-CV-195-A
§
§
Defendant.
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Came on for consideration the first amended opposed motion
of defendant, Santander Consumer USA,
Inc., to compel arbitration
and to dismiss. Plaintiff, Vesha Smith, has failed to respond to
the motion, which is ripe for ruling. The court, having
considered the motion, the record, and applicable authorities,
finds that the motion should be granted.
I.
Plaintiff's Claim
On March 14, 2018, plaintiff filed her original complaint in
this action. Doc. 1 1. In it, she alleges that she was employed by
defendant; that plaintiff requested accommodations for
disability; that defendant accommodated plaintiff for a time;
and, ultimately, defendant determined that it would no longer
accommodate her disability and terminated her. Id. , , 4-8.
'The "Doc.
I
__,,\, " ' '
By
§
§
Plaintiff,
.
1
i MAY l 5 2018
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TE{As
FORT WORTH DIVISION
VESHA SMITH,
·" _,' '--'
"reference is to the number of the item on the docket in this action.
'
I
!
Plaintiff says that she was discriminated against in violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.
12213
§§
12101-
("ADA"). Id. , , 9-12.
II.
Ground of the Motion
Defendant says that plaintiff's claim is subject to an
arbitration agreement she signed when she became employed by
defendant.
III.
Applicable Legal Principles
The law strongly favors arbitration. Texaco Expl. & Prod.
Co. v. AmClyde Engineered Prods. Co., 243 F.3d 906, 909 (5th Cir.
2001); Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 268
(Tex.
1992) (orig. proceeding). Thus, there is a presumption in favor of
the enforceability of arbitration agreements. Walton v. Rose
Mobile Homes, LLC, 298 F.3d 470, 473
(5th Cir. 2002); In re
FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d 749, 753
(Tex. 2001). Once the
existence of an arbitration agreement is shown, the party
opposing arbitration bears the burden of defeating the agreement.
Walton, 298 F.3d at 473; Cantella & Co. v. Goodwin, 924 S.W.2d
943,
944
(Tex. 1996).
2
IV.
Analysis
In this case, defendant has shown that plaintiff's claim is
subject to an arbitration agreement. Doc. 23 at 6. 14-15, 35.
Plaintiff and defendant agreed that "any dispute, claim, or
controversy" that might arise between them regarding plaintiff's
employment by defendant or the termination of her employment
would be submitted to binding arbitration. Id. at 14.
Accordingly, dismissal of plaintiff's claim pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b) (1)
is appropriate. Omni Pinnacle, LLC v. ECC
Operating Servs., Inc., 255 F. App'x 24, 25-26
(5th Cir. 2007).
v.
Order
The court ORDERS that plaintiff's first amended opposed
motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss be, and is hereby,
granted; that plaintiff's claim against defendant be, and is
hereby, dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (1); and, that
the parties are ORDERED to proceed to arbitration in accordance
with the agreement between them.
SIGNED May 15, 2018.
District
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?