Park Restaurant Holdings v. Platt et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order Staying Case and Compelling Arbitration (follows 18 Minute Order of 4/25/12 hearing). Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 5/3/12 (alt)

Patrick A. Shea (Bar No. 2929)
PATRICK A. SHEA, P.C.
252 S. 1300 E., Suite A
Salt Lake City, UT 84102
Telephone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Jacque M. Ramos (Bar No. 10720)
J. Ramos Law Firm, PLLC
252 South 1300 East, Suite A
Salt Lake City, UT 84102
Telephone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Ira Platt, Legacy Pool Holdings, LLC and
Georgiana Ventures, LLC.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

PARK RESTAURANT HOLDINGS, LLC a
Nevada Limited Liability Company,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER STAYING CASE AND
COMPELLING ARBITRATION

v.
Case No.: 2:11-cv-01056 DN
IRA PLATT, an individual; LEGACY POOL
HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; and GEORGIANA
VENTURES, LLC a Delaware Limited
Liability Company,
Defendants.

On April 25, 2012, the Court heard oral argument on Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss or Alternatively to Stay Proceeding and Compel Arbitration (docket no. 10). Jay
D. Gurmankin and Christopher R. Hogle with Holland & Hart LLP were present on
behalf of Plaintiff. Patrick A. Shea and Jacque M. Ramos were present on behalf of
Defendants.
The Court having reviewed the pleadings submitted by the parties, and having
heard oral argument from all counsel, and for other good cause appearing, enters the
following FINDINGS:
(1) Park Restaurant Holdings did not enter into an arbitration agreement with Legacy
Pool Holdings, LLC. Accordingly, Park Restaurant Holdings cannot be compelled
to arbitrate its claims against Legacy Pool Holdings.
(2) With respect to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Ira Platt and Georgiana
Ventures, LLC, it is in the Court’s view that in determining whether arbitration is
mandatory the first sentence in paragraph 14.12 of the Operating Agreement
stating that “[a]ny action to enforce or interpret this Agreement, or to resolve
disputes with respect to this Agreement as between the LLC and a Member, or
between or among the Members, shall be settled by arbitration . . . .” controls, not
only because of its language but because of the strong presumption in favor of
arbitration.

2

(3) Additionally, the second sentence of 14.12 of the Operating Agreement when read
with section 14.13 means that each member has the right to invoke the right to
arbitration and if the member invokes the right to arbitration then there is no right
to other litigation process.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively
to Stay Proceeding and Compel Arbitration (docket no. 10) is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. Defendants’ Motion to
Stay is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is STAYED pending the completion of
Arbitration and within fourteen days of the conclusion of Arbitration, any party may
move the court for an order lifting the stay, so that the case may proceed as to claims, if
any, against Legacy Pool Holdings.

DATED this 3rd day of May, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

__________________________________
David Nuffer
U.S. District Judge

3

Reviewed as to Form and Approved (prior to revisions by the court):

_____________________________
Christopher R. Hogle
Holland & Hart LLP
Attorney for Plaintiff Park Restaurant Holdings, LLC

4