Sigma 3 Integrated Reservoir Solutions Inc. et al v. Ouenes et al

Filing 13

ORDER entered: This case is dismissed, without prejudice, in favor of arbitration. Case terminated on 1/17/17.(Signed by Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, 4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
SIGMA 3 INTEGRATED RESERVOIR,
SOLUTIONS INC. AND SIGMA CUBED
INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
AHMED OUENES, PETER O’CONOR
AND FRACGEO L.L.C.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

January 17, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-16-3332

ORDER
The parties have agreed to arbitrate their disputes, including their dispute over the issuance
of a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, Docket Entry No. 1,
and the defendants’ motion to dismiss, Docket Entry No. 6, are denied as moot.
Under section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 3, “a stay is mandatory upon a
showing that the opposing party has commenced suit upon any issue referable to arbitration under
an agreement in writing for such arbitration . . . .” Alford v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 975 F.2d
1161, 1164 (5th Cir. 1992). The Fifth Circuit has interpreted this language to mean that the district
court cannot deny a stay when one is properly requested. Id. “This rule, however, was not intended
to limit dismissal of a case in the proper circumstances.” Id. “[A] dismissal may be appropriate
‘when all of the issues raised in the district court must be submitted to arbitration.’” Ruiz v.
Donahoe, 784 F.3d 247, 249–50 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Alford, 975 F.2d at 1164). As the Fifth
Circuit explained in Alford:
Although we understand that plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration must be
1

granted, we do not believe that the proper course is to stay the action pending
arbitration. Given our ruling that all issues raised in this action are arbitrable and
must be submitted to arbitration, retaining jurisdiction and staying the action will
serve no purpose. Any post-arbitration remedies sought by the parties will not entail
renewed consideration and adjudication of the merits of the controversy but would
be circumscribed to a judicial review of the arbitrator’s award in the limited manner
prescribed by law.
Id. (quoting Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Sea-Land of Puerto Rico, Inc., 636 F. Supp. 750, 757 (D.
Puerto Rico 1986)).
This case is dismissed, without prejudice, in favor of arbitration.
SIGNED on January 17, 2017, at Houston, Texas.
______________________________________
Lee H. Rosenthal
Chief United States District Judge

2