Petrohab, LLC v. Dynamic Industries, Inc. et al

Filing 13

ORDER entered MOOTING 11 MOTION to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Stay all Proceedings Pending Arbitration. This case is dismissed, without prejudice, in favor of arbitration. Case terminated on 5/23/17.(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
PETROHAB, LLC,
Plaintiff,
VS.
DYNAMIC INDUSTRIES, INC. AND
DYNAMIC ANGOLA, L.L.C.
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

May 23, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-17-1143

ORDER
The parties have agreed to arbitrate their disputes, including their dispute over the time frame
of mediation and direct negotiation. The defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss,
Docket Entry No. 11, is 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
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
1

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 May 23, 2017, at Houston, Texas.
______________________________________
Lee H. Rosenthal
Chief United States District Judg

2