Roberts v. Obelisk, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Larry Alan Burns (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed the status of the case after finding the claims arbitrable and ordering arbitration, noting that plaintiffs failed to file an arbitration demand despite a prior order. The court dismissed the action without prejudice, clarifying that the dismissal allows for future confirmation of an arbitral award but does not permit re-filing the original lawsuit.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the action without prejudice as to all Defendants“This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all Defendants.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit's framework for handling cases where all claims are arbitrable. While the Ninth Circuit generally prefers a stay, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss due to the plaintiffs' failure to comply with the court's order to proceed to arbitration. The dismissal without prejudice is a standard mechanism to preserve the court's jurisdiction to confirm an award under the Federal Arbitration Act while closing the current case. |
The order itself: sound — The order is legally sound. It correctly identifies the relevant Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the choice between staying and dismissing a case where all claims are arbitrable. It acknowledges the circuit's preference for a stay but justifies the deviation based on the plaintiffs' failure to comply with the court's prior order to proceed to arbitration. The explanation of the effect of the dismissal (preserving jurisdiction for confirmation of an award) is accurate under the Federal Arbitration Act.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 SHAUN ROBERTS, et al., CASE NO. 18cv2898-LAB (BGS) 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 12 vs. 13 OBELISK, INC., a Delaware corporation, et 14 al., Defendants. 15 16 17 In April of this year, the Court found that Plaintiffs’ claims were arbitrable and ordered 18 the parties to “proceed immediately to arbitration.” See Dkt. 19 at 16. Despite that clear 19 order, more than six months have passed, and Plaintiffs still have not filed an arbitration 20 demand. 21 Where, as here, a court determines that “all of the claims raised in [an] action are 22 subject to arbitration, . . . [a] district court may either stay the action or dismiss it outright.” 23 Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale's, Inc., 755 F.3d 1072, 1074 (9th Cir. 2014). Although a 24 court has discretion in choosing whether to dismiss or stay proceedings, the Ninth Circuit’s 25 “preference” is for district courts to “stay[] an action pending arbitration rather than dismiss[] 26 it.” MediVas, LLC v. Marubeni Corp., 741 F.3d 4, 9 (9th Cir. 2014). Consistent with that 27 preference, this Court previously stayed these proceedings while the parties arbitrated their 28 1 claims. In light of the parties’ failure to timely submit an arbitration demand, however, it 2 appears dismissal was the appropriate remedy.1 3 This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all Defendants. This does 4 not mean Plaintiffs are free to bring the same suit again; they remain bound by the Court’s 5 ruling that their claims must be arbitrated. Instead, this dismissal without prejudice means 6 that the parties may, if necessary, file a new suit to confirm any arbitral judgment down the 7 road. See 9 U.S.C. § 9 (“[A]t any time within one year after the award is made any party to 8 the arbitration may apply to the court so specified for an order confirming the award.”). The 9 clerk is directed to enter judgment and close the case. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: November 12, 2019 12 HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS Chief United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Dismissal is also appropriate because the parties have failed to comply with this Court’s instructions. The Court ordered the parties to submit a joint status report every sixty days 28 until the arbitration was final. The parties filed status reports on June 28, 2019 and August
Cites, in this corpus
- Medivas, LLC v. Marubeni Corporation 12-55375 · 2014-01-27