Castillo v. United Rentals (North America), Inc.

Filing 69

ORDER scheduling Oral Argument on Defendant United Rentals (North America)'s 62 MOTION to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss : Motion Hearing set for 3/6/2019 at 11:00 AM. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

SEAN POWELL,

CASE NO. C17-1573JLR
Plaintiff,

11
v.

ORDER SCHEDULING ORAL
ARGUMENT

12
13

UNITED RENTALS (NORTH
AMERICA), INC.,

14

Defendant.

15
The court hereby SCHEDULES oral argument on Defendant United Rentals
16
(North America), Inc.’s (“United Rentals”) motion to compel arbitration for Wednesday,
17
March 6, 2019, at 11:00 a.m. (Mot. (Dkt. # 62).) The court DIRECTS the parties to
18
come prepared to discuss the following issues:
19
Is United Rentals’ motion to compel arbitration properly before this court? The
20
arbitration agreement at issue (“the Agreement”) vests the courts of Fairfield County,
21
Connecticut and the District of Connecticut with “exclusive jurisdiction” to determine
22

ORDER - 1

1

matters concerning “[t]he interpretation and enforcement of the terms” of the Agreement.

2

(Marzulla Decl. (Dkt. # 64) ¶ 4, Ex. A (“Agreement”) § D.) Plaintiff Sean Powell argues

3

that, in light of this clause, only a state or federal court in Connecticut may determine the

4

threshold issues of arbitrability the parties have put before this court. (Resp. (Dkt. # 66)

5

at 1, 5-6.) United Rentals disputes that argument on the ground that private parties

6

cannot deprive a court of subject matter jurisdiction over a controversy by means of a

7

choice-of-venue or forum selection clause. (Reply (Dkt. # 68) at 2.) The court is

8

satisfied that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying action and statutory

9

authority under the Federal Arbitration Agreement (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., to

10

entertain United Rentals’ motion to compel arbitration. See 9 U.S.C. §§ 3, 4. However,

11

the court seeks argument from the parties as to: (1) the interaction, if any, between the

12

clause in the Agreement that vests courts in Connecticut with exclusive jurisdiction to

13

interpret and enforce the Agreement, on the one hand, and the Agreement’s alleged

14

incorporation of the rules of the American Arbitration Association, which delegate

15

threshold issues of arbitrability to an arbitrator, on the other (see Agreement § D;

16

Simpson Decl. (Dkt. # 63) ¶ 5, Ex. B at 17); (2) whether the clause that vests courts in

17

Connecticut with exclusive jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the Agreement should be

18

treated as a forum selection clause; and (3) whether the parties have functionally “waived

19

any benefit” of that clause, as United Rentals suggests (see Reply at 3).

20

In addition, the court DIRECTS the parties to consider whether the following is

21

relevant to the court’s adjudication of United Rentals’ motion to compel arbitration:

22

Under the FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 4, a district court may order arbitration only within the

ORDER - 2

1

district in which the petition to compel arbitration was filed. See, e.g., Lexington Ins. Co.

2

v. Centex Homes, 795 F. Supp. 2d 1084, 1091 (D. Haw. 2011) (citing Cont’l Grain Co. v.

3

Dant & Russell, Inc. 118 F.2d 967, 968-69 (9th Cir. 1941)); see also Merrill Lynch,

4

Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Lauer, 49 F.3d 323, 327 (7th Cir. 1995) (noting that “the

5

mandatory language [of 9 U.S.C. § 4] ties the location of arbitration to the district in

6

which the motion to compel is brought”). Accordingly, under the FAA, the District of

7

Connecticut could not compel arbitration according to the terms set forth in the

8

Agreement, i.e., that arbitration occur within 50 miles of the place where Mr. Powell last

9

worked for United Rentals. (See Agreement § D); 9 U.S.C. § 4. Because the parties have

10

not briefed this issue, the court asks the parties to come prepared to discuss its relevance,

11

if any, to the court’s decision on United Rentals’ motion to compel arbitration.

12

Dated this 1st day of March, 2019.

13
14

A

15

The Honorable James L. Robart
U.S. District Court Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3