Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. FRY'S ELECTRONICS, INC.

Filing 145

ORDER granting dft Fry's Electronic's 103 Second Motion to Compel Arbitration by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

_______________________________________
)
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
)
COMMISSION,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
FRY’S ELECTRONICS, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________________)

No. C10-1562RSL
ORDER GRANTING SECOND
MOTION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION

14

This matter comes before the Court on “Defendant Fry’s Electronics Inc.’s Second

15
16

Motion to Compel Arbitration.” (Dkt. # 103). Having considered the arguments made by the

17

parties and reviewed all pleadings and evidence in support of and in opposition to the motion,1

18

the Court finds as follows:
Plaintiff Ka Lam previously represented to the Court that he would submit his

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1

The Court has not considered the letters from counsel, dated February 7, 2012, and February
15, 2012. Mr. Blankenship’s efforts to communicate with the Court regarding pending motions outside
the normal briefing process is improper. Counsel could have and should have presented whatever
“procedural issues” are bothering him in response to defendant’s motion to compel arbitration or, if
necessary, in a separate motion. Requests for Court action shall be made by motion, not through phone
calls or correspondence. The “telephonic motions” discussed in Local Civil Rule 7(i) will be considered
only when the parties have reached an impasse at a deposition and need an immediate resolution to a
discrete and concrete issue. The parties are, of course, free to contact my judicial assistant regarding
scheduling matters, but informal communications with the law clerk or the Court are to be avoided.
ORDER GRANTING SECOND MOTION
TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

1

individual claims to arbitration. Plaintiff America Rios has never seriously contested her

2

obligation to arbitrate. Given the Court’s prior rulings regarding the enforceability of the

3

arbitration agreement, plaintiffs’ willingness to proceed to arbitration despite their lingering

4

objections is not only sensible, but expected.
Although the parties agreed to arbitrate plaintiffs’ individual claims, they could not

5
6

agree on the language of the stipulation. Both sides proposed terms and conditions that favored

7

their respective positions. Once the parties agreed on an arbitrator, however, defendant

8

withdrew its prior proposals in favor of the form “Stipulation for Arbitration and Selection of

9

Arbitrator” used by the Honorable Terry Lukens (ret.) at JAMS. Plaintiffs refused to sign the

10

third-party form as-is, instead insisting on additional language regarding the legal impact of the

11

arbitration on the above-captioned litigation. Having already agreed to forego a jury trial and

12

submit this dispute to arbitration, plaintiffs are in no position to demand additional provisions or

13

safeguards that are not compelled by the arbitration agreements they signed. The legal effect of

14

the arbitration on the above-captioned lawsuit will be decided by this Court, not by stipulation of

15

the parties.

16

Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. The parties are hereby

17

ORDERED to proceed to arbitration as soon as possible but no later than the last week of April

18

2012. The arbitrator will decide whether the claims of the two plaintiffs should be arbitrated

19

together or separately.

20
21

Dated this 16th day of February, 2012.

A

22

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
ORDER GRANTING SECOND MOTION
TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

-2-