McGrath v. SYSTIME Computer Corporation

Filing 38

ORDER granting dft's 15 Motion to Dismiss by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

_______________________________________
)
DANIEL S. McGRATH,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
SYSTIME COMPUTER CORPORATION,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

Case No. C13-0822RSL
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

13

This matter comes before the Court on “Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or, in the
14

Alternative, to Stay in Favor of Arbitration.” Dkt. # 15. Defendant seeks to enforce the
15

arbitration provision in a 2005 employment agreement between the parties. Plaintiff
16

acknowledges signing the employment agreement, but argues that it was superceded by one or
17

more later documents and is no longer enforceable. Plaintiff also argues that the agreement to
18

arbitrate is invalid because it violates his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. Having
19

reviewed the memoranda, declarations, and exhibits submitted by the parties and having heard
20

the arguments of counsel, the Court finds as follows:
21

Pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, a written agreement to settle a controversy
22

by arbitration “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at
23

law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. In this case, the parties not
24

only agreed to arbitrate “all disputes between Employee . . . and Employer,” but also agreed that
25

“[t]he arbitrator shall have exclusive authority to resolve all Arbitrable Claims, including, but
26
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

1

not limited to, whether any particular claim is arbitrable and whether all or any part of this

2

Agreement is void or unenforceable.” Decl. of Cheryl Lemos (Dkt. # 16), Ex. A at ¶ 10(c).

3

Plaintiff’s challenge to the continuing validity of the 2005 contract as a whole does not preclude

4

enforcement of the specific, severable promise to arbitrate disputes regarding enforceability.

5

Rent-a-Center West, Inc. v. Jackson, __ U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 2772, 2777-79 (2010). It is

6

undisputed that plaintiff signed a broad agreement to arbitrate all issues of arbitrability,

7

including the continued validity of the agreement. Plaintiff argues that subsequent events (i.e.,

8

receipt of a new handbook and/or a change in position) invalidated the undisputed agreement to

9

arbitrate. The Court finds that, in the context of this case, the arbitrator must decide whether the

10

initial agreement was intended to provide the general terms under which plaintiff would be

11

employed by defendant or whether the terms applied only to the period of time in which he

12

worked as an account executive.

13

The Seventh Amendment does not preclude enforcement of the arbitration

14

provision. As a general matter, an agreement to arbitrate is a contractual selection of an

15

alternative forum that involves neither courts nor juries: to the extent the Seventh Amendment

16

right to a jury is in play at all, the parties implicitly waived it. Janiga v. Questar Capital Corp.,

17

615 F.3d 735, 743 (7th Cir. 2010) (argument that the Seventh Amendment bars enforcement of

18

an arbitration agreement “proves too much; parties are entitled to opt in a contract for an

19

alternative method of dispute resolution that involves neither courts nor juries. That is implicit

20

in any arbitration agreement.”); Cooper v. MRM Investment Co., 367 F.3d 493, 506 (6th Cir.

21

2004) (“[T]he loss of the right to a jury trial is a necessary and fairly obvious consequence of an

22

agreement to arbitrate.”) (citation omitted). In this particular case, the arbitration agreement

23

contained an express and conspicuous waiver of the right to a jury trial “INCLUDING

24

WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY AS TO THE MAKING,

25

EXISTENCE, VALIDITY, OR ENFORCEABILITY OF THE AGREEMENT TO

26
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

-2-

1

ARBITRATE.” In these circumstances, no heightened showing of knowledge or voluntariness

2

is necessary to enforce the arbitration agreement and/or the express contractual waiver of the

3

right to a jury trial. Caley v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 428 F.3d 1359, 1370-73 (11th Cir.

4

2005).

5
6

For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s

7

claims are subject to arbitration, and this matter is hereby DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is

8

directed to enter judgment in the above-captioned matter.

9
10

Dated this 20th day of November, 2013.
11
12

A

13

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

-3-