Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01788/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01788-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Maxwell Monsanto, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

DWW Partners, LLLP, an Arizona limited

liability partnership, d/b/a Right Honda;

DWW AZ, Inc., an Arizona corporation,

d/b/a Right Honda; David Wilson

Automotive Group, a California

corporation, d/b/a Right Honda, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-01788-PHX-FJM

ORDER

We have before us defendant DWW AZ, Inc.’s motion for reconsideration (doc. 35).

In our January 15, 2010 order granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay

proceedings (doc. 30), we set a June 1, 2010 deadline for the parties to complete arbitration.

Defendant moves for this deadline to be reconsidered.

Defendant raises two new issues in support of a request that this case “be stayed

pending completion of the arbitration, without limitation.” Motion for Reconsideration at

8. First, it claims that an arbitration deadline contravenes the Federal Arbitration Act

(“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 3, which allows for a stay “until such arbitration has been had in

accordance with the terms of the agreement.” The language of the FAA does not mandate

arbitration without limitation. Second, defendant relies on Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v.

Case 2:09-cv-01788-FJM Document 37 Filed 02/01/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 105 S. Ct. 1238 (1985), for the proposition that the FAA’s goal of

expeditiously resolving claims should give way when it conflicts with its goal of enforcing

the terms of valid arbitration agreements. The parties’ agreements do not call for arbitration

without limitation. See Salazar-Burns Affidavit, Ex. A. Thus, there is no conflict.

Defendant’s remaining concerns were raised at our Rule 16 scheduling conference

held on January 15, 2010. We will not consider them again. See LRCiv 7.2(g) (“No motion

for reconsideration of an Order may repeat any oral or written argument made by the movant

in support of or in opposition to the motion that resulted in the Order.”).

In the alternative, defendant requests an arbitration completion date of November 1,

2010. We deny this request.

Our deadline is designed to ensure that the parties do not drag their feet in arbitration.

As long as this case is on our docket, the Civil Justice Reform Act applies. See 28 U.S.C.

§§ 471-82. The Act encourages early, firm trial dates “scheduled to occur within eighteen

months after the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 473(a)(2)(B). Early arbitration fulfills

the goals of both the Federal Arbitration Act and the Civil Justice Reform Act.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING defendant’s motion for reconsideration

(doc. 35). The June 1, 2010 arbitration completion date is affirmed.

DATED this 1st day of February, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01788-FJM Document 37 Filed 02/01/10 Page 2 of 2