Ochoa v. San Diego County Credit Union
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed the status of a case where all remaining claims were subject to arbitration but the plaintiffs had not commenced arbitration proceedings. The court dismissed the action without prejudice, noting that it did not preclude the parties from returning to court to confirm or vacate an arbitration award.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the action without prejudice“Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that when all claims are subject to arbitration, the court may dismiss the action without prejudice. The record indicates that the plaintiffs had not commenced arbitration, and the dismissal without prejudice preserves the parties' rights to return to court for arbitration-related relief under the Federal Arbitration Act. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly addresses the procedural posture of the case. It correctly cites the relevant Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the options available to a court when all claims are subject to arbitration. The dismissal without prejudice is a standard and appropriate remedy in this context, ensuring that the parties' rights under the Federal Arbitration Act are preserved.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 VERONICA G. OCHOA, et al., Case No.: 3:20-cv-1037-L-DEB 10 Plaintiffs, 11 v. ORDER DISMISSING CASE 12 SAN DIEGO COUNTY CREDIT WITHOUT PREJUDICE 13 UNION, 14 Defendant. 15 On July 10, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiffs and Defendant San Diego County 16 Credit Union’s (“SDCCU”) joint motion to submit the claims to arbitration. (Doc. No. 9). 17 The Court also stayed Plaintiffs’ prosecution of claims against SDCCU in this action. Id. 18 On September 28, 2020, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Defendant Equifax with 19 prejudice. (Doc. No. 15). On October 30, 2020, the Court granted a joint motion to 20 dismiss Defendant TransUnion with prejudice. (Doc. No. 21). There was no further 21 activity in the case. (See Docket). 22 Therefore, on May 7, 2021, the Court issued an order to show cause as to why it 23 should not dismiss the case without prejudice under Civil Local Rule 41.1. (Doc. No. 22). 24 Based on the responses to the order to show cause, it is apparent Plaintiffs never 25 commenced arbitration against SDCCU. (Doc. No. 23 at 3; Doc. No. 24). Plaintiffs 26 intend to initiate arbitration in June 2021 – almost one year after the Court granted 27 28 1 || Plaintiffs and SDCCU’s joint motion. (Doc. No. 24). Plaintiffs request the Court not 2 || dismiss the case. Id. 3 When, as here, all the claims raised in an action are subject to arbitration, courts 4 || may either stay the action or dismiss it outright. Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale’s, 5 || Inc., 755 F.3d 1072, 1074 (9th Cir. 2014). Based on the foregoing, the Court 6 || DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action. This order does not preclude either 7 || party from returning to court to confirm, vacate, or modify the arbitration award as 8 || provided in 9 U.S.C. section 1 ef seq. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: May 28, 2021 fee oop 12 H . James Lorenz, 3 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28