Colburn v. Synchrony Bank
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion by the parties to arbitrate all claims pursuant to a pre-litigation agreement and to stay the lawsuit pending arbitration. The court granted the motion to arbitrate, denied the request for a stay, and dismissed the action without prejudice.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant of Joint Motion to Arbitrate“To the extent the parties jointly request an order to arbitrate, the Joint Motion is granted.” | agree with court The parties jointly stipulated to arbitration based on a pre-litigation agreement. Under the Federal Arbitration Act, courts must enforce valid arbitration agreements. Since the parties agreed to the motion, granting it is the correct procedural outcome. |
Denial of Request to Stay Action“To the extent the parties request to stay this action pending arbitration, the Joint Motion is denied.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that a stay is appropriate when only specific issues are referred to arbitration (9 U.S.C. § 3). When the entire action is referred to arbitration, the proper procedure is dismissal, not a stay. The court cited Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc. to support this distinction. |
Dismissal of Action Without Prejudice“This action is dismissed without prejudice.” | agree with court Because the entire action was referred to arbitration, the court dismissed the case without prejudice to allow for the confirmation, vacatur, or modification of the arbitration award under the FAA. This is the standard procedure for full-case arbitration referrals. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the Federal Arbitration Act and Ninth Circuit precedent (Simula) to distinguish between partial arbitration (which warrants a stay) and full-case arbitration (which warrants dismissal). The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the joint motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BARBARA J. COLBURN, Case No.: 19cv1930-L-MDD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. JOINT MOTION 14 SYNCHRONY BANK, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Joint Motion and Stipulation to Arbitrate Claims 18 and Stay Lawsuit (“Joint Motion.” doc. no. 12). The parties request an order arbitrate 19 this action in its entirety according to a pre-litigation arbitration agreement, and stay the 20 action pending arbitration. 21 Pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §1 et seq. ("FAA"), to the extent 22 Plaintiff’s claims are not otherwise resolved by the parties, Plaintiff shall submit her 23 claims to binding, non-judicial arbitration pursuant to the parties’ arbitration agreement. 24 To the extent the parties jointly request an order to arbitrate, the Joint Motion is granted. 25 To the extent the parties request to stay this action pending arbitration, the Joint 26 Motion is denied. Stay is appropriate when specific issues are referred to arbitration. 9 27 U.S.C. § 3. When, as here, the entire action is referred to arbitration, it may be 28 ! dismissed. See Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc.,175 F.3d 716, 719 (9 Cir. 1999). This Order 2 does not preclude the parties from returning to court to confirm, vacate or modify the 3 || arbitration award as provided in the FAA. 4 Accordingly, Joint Motion is granted in part and denied in part. This action is 5 || dismissed without prejudice. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 || Dated: March 26, 2020 (fee oop 1 H . James Lorenz, United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28