Eustolia Alvarez v. Marriott Resorts Hospitality Corporation
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Defendant moved to compel arbitration, and Plaintiff opposed the motion only to the extent of requesting a delay for an Early Neutral Evaluation conference. The Court granted the motion to compel arbitration, stayed the case, and administratively closed the case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant Defendant's motion to compel arbitration“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. (ECF No. 11.)” | agree with court The order recites that the Plaintiff does not oppose the motion to compel arbitration, only requesting a delay for settlement discussions which the Defendant rejected. Under the Federal Arbitration Act, when a party moves to compel arbitration and the opposing party does not contest the validity or enforceability of the agreement, the court is required to enforce the agreement. The court's decision to grant the motion follows directly from the parties' positions and the statutory mandate. |
Stay the case pending arbitration“The Court will STAY the case pending arbitration.” | agree with court Staying the district court action while arbitration proceeds is the standard procedural mechanism to prevent duplicative litigation and preserve the court's jurisdiction to enforce the arbitration award. This is a routine and appropriate order accompanying a grant of a motion to compel. |
Administratively close the case“The Court directs the Clerk of Court to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE case.” | agree with court Administrative closure is a common docketing practice for cases that are stayed for extended periods, such as those pending arbitration. The court correctly notes that this action does not divest the court of jurisdiction. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the lack of opposition to the core motion to compel arbitration. It applies the correct statutory framework (FAA) and cites the appropriate Supreme Court precedent (Rent-A-Center) regarding the enforcement of arbitration agreements. The decision to deny the Plaintiff's request for a pre-arbitration ENE conference is supported by the Defendant's refusal and the general principle that courts should not impose settlement mechanisms not agreed to by the parties, especially when the motion to compel is unopposed on the merits. The administrative closure is properly characterized as non-jurisdictional.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EUSTOLIA ALVAREZ, Case No. 26-cv-2772-BAS-MMP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. COMPEL ARBITRATION (ECF No. 3) 14 MARRIOTT RESORTS HOSPITALITY CORPORATION, 15 Defendant. 16 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 Presently before the Court is Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. (ECF No. 19 3.) Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion concedes: “Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant’s 20 Motion for Arbitration.” (ECF No. 4.) Nevertheless, Plaintiff requests that the Court delay 21 any order compelling arbitration and first send the parties to an Early Neutral Evaluation 22 (“ENE”) Conference to discuss settlement. (Id.) Defendant filed a reply, rejecting the 23 proposal to participate in an ENE Conference before arbitration. (ECF No. 5.) Defendant 24 affirms its non-opposed request to compel arbitration. (Id.) 25 II. ANALYSIS 26 The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) makes arbitration agreements “valid, 27 irrevocable, and enforceable.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. The FAA allows a party in the agreement to 28 “petition any United States district court . . . for an order directing that such arbitration 1 || proceed in the manner provided for in such agreement.” 9 U.S.C. § 4. The court’s role is 2 ||to enforce arbitration agreements “according to their terms.” Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. 3 || Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 67 (2010). 4 Here, given that Defendant opposes the request for an ENE Conference before 5 arbitration and Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant’s motion for arbitration, the Court 6 || enforces the arbitration agreement between the parties. 7 I. CONCLUSION 8 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. (ECF 9 || No. 11.) The Court ORDERS the parties to proceed to arbitration in the manner provided 10 || for in the Arbitration Agreement. See 9 U.S.C. § 4. The Court will STAY the case pending 11 || arbitration. 12 Lastly, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE 13 case. The decision to administratively close this case pending resolution of the 14 || arbitration does not have any jurisdictional effect. See Dees v. Billy, 394 F.3d 1290, 1294 15 Cir. 2005) (“[A] district court order staying judicial proceedings and compelling 16 || arbitration is not appealable even if accompanied by an administrative closing.”). 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ~ 19 || DATED: June 5, 2026 (yi. (Doha 0 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28