Garrison v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 DARION GARRISON, an individual, Case No.: 20-cv-02450-H-WVG Plaintiff, 15 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND v. 16 DENYING IN PART THE PARTIES’ CVS PHARMACY, INC., a Rhode Island JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL 17 corporation; GARFIELD BEACH CVS, ARBITRATION L.L.C., a Rhode Island corporation; and 18 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, [Doc. No. 7.] 19 Defendants. 20 On November 10, 2020, Plaintiff Darion Garrison filed a complaint against 21 Defendants CVS Pharmacy, Inc. and Garfield Beach CVS, L.L.C. in the Superior Court of 22 the State of California, County of San Diego, alleging a claim for wrongful termination in 23 violation of public policy and several other claims. (Doc. No. 1-2, Compl.) On December 24 16, 2020, Defendants removed the action to the Southern District of California pursuant to 25 28 U.S.C. § 1441 on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. No. 26 1, Notice of Removal.) On December 16, 2020, Defendants filed an answer to Plaintiff’s 27 complaint. (Doc. No. 3.) 28 1 On January 7, 2021, the parties filed a joint motion requesting: (1) that the Court 2 order the parties to binding arbitration as to all causes of action in Plaintiff’s complaint 3 pursuant to the terms of the parties’ agreement; and (2) that the Court stay the action 4 pending completion of the arbitration to the extent allowed under federal law. (Doc. No. 5 7.) In the joint motion, the parties represent that: “The claims asserted by Plaintiff in the 6 operative complaint are claims covered by the [parties’] Agreement, and the Parties have 7 met and conferred and agreed to submit Plaintiff’s claims to binding arbitration, pursuant 8 to the terms of the Agreement.” (Id. at 2.) 9 The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) permits “[a] party aggrieved by the alleged 10 failure, neglect, or refusal of another to arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration 11 [to] petition any United States District Court . . . for an order directing that . . . arbitration 12 proceed in the manner provided for in [the arbitration] agreement.” 9 U.S.C. § 4. Upon a 13 showing that a party has failed to comply with a valid arbitration agreement, the district 14 court must issue an order compelling arbitration. KPMG LLP v. Cocchi, 565 U.S. 18, 21 15 (2011). A party moving to compel arbitration must show “(1) the existence of a valid, 16 written agreement to arbitrate; and, if it exists, (2) that the agreement to arbitrate 17 encompasses the dispute at issue.” Ashbey v. Archstone Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 785 F.3d 1320, 18 1323 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted); see also Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., 771 F.3d 19 559, 565 (9th Cir. 2014). 20 Here, the parties represent that they entered into an agreement “to arbitrate any and 21 all claims arising out of or relating to Plaintiff’s employment with CVS or the termination 22 of Plaintiff’s employment.” (Doc. No. 7 at 2; see Doc. No. 7-1, Ex. A.) The parties further 23 represent that this arbitration agreement covers all the claims asserted by Plaintiff against 24 Defendants in his complaint. (Doc. No. 7 at 2.) Thus, because the parties both claim that 25 a valid arbitration agreement exists that covers the claims at issue in this action, the Court 26 must compel Plaintiff to submit his claims against Defendants to arbitration. See KPMG, 27 565 U.S. at 21. 28 The Court now turns to the parties’ request to stay the action pending arbitration. 1 Section 3 of the FAA provides the following: 2 If any suit or proceeding be brought in any of the courts of the United States upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for such 3 arbitration, the court in which such suit is pending, upon being satisfied that 4 the issue involved in such suit or proceeding is referable to arbitration under such an agreement, shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of 5 the action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of 6 the agreement . . . . 7 “The Ninth Circuit has held, however, that § 3 does not impose a mandatory duty to stay 8 on district courts. Even when a party seeks a stay under § 3, the court has discretion to 9 dismiss the case if it concludes that all the claims before it are arbitrable.” Erickson v. 10 Endurance Am. Specialty Ins. Co., No. 12-CV-01703-H-MDD, 2012 WL 13175882, at *3 11 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2012) (citations omitted); see also Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale’s, 12 Inc., 755 F.3d 1072, 1073-74 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[A] district court may either stay the action 13 or dismiss it outright when . . . the court determines that all of the claims raised in the action 14 are subject to arbitration.” (citation omitted)); Thinket Ink Info. Res. v. Sun Microsystems, 15 Inc., 368 F.3d 1053, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (affirming dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) when 16 all claims were subject to arbitration); Delgado v. Ally Fin., Inc., No. 17-CV-02189-BEN- 17 JMA, 2018 WL 2128661, at *6 (S.D. Cal. May 8, 2018) (“Having decided that all of [the] 18 claims are subject to arbitration, the Court is within its discretion to dismiss the complaint 19 under Rule 12(b)(6).”). 20 Here, the parties represent in their joint motion that all of Plaintiff’s claims in the 21 complaint are covered by the arbitration agreement. (See Doc. No. 7 at 2.) Therefore, 22 because no claims remain to be litigated in this Court, the Court, in its discretion, dismisses 23 the action. See Johnmohammadi, 755 F.3d at 1073-74; Thinket Ink, 368 F.3d at 1060; 24 Delgado, 2018 WL 2128661, at *6. The parties, of course, are free to move to re-open the 25 case to confirm the arbitration award at the appropriate time. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// ] In sum, the Court grants in part and denies in part the parties’ joint motion to compel 2 arbitration and stay the action. Specifically, the Court compels Plaintiff to submit his 3 ||claims against Defendants in this action to arbitration. The Court subsequently dismisses 4 ||the action and directs the Clerk to close the case. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || DATED: January 8, 2021 lu luual HUFF, Suge 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28