Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_19-cv-08101/USCOURTS-azd-3_19-cv-08101-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Wayne Eder,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Northern Arizona Consolidated Fire District 

#1, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-8101-PCT-JJT

ORDER

At issue is Defendants Northern Arizona Consolidated Fire District #1 (“NACFD”),

Mike Collins, Erik Berg, Carl Hays, John Bryant, and Jim Bailey’s Motion to Dismiss and 

Compel Arbitration (Doc. 30, Mot.), to which Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. 35) and 

Defendants filed a Reply (Doc. 37).

The dispositive issue before the Court is whether Plaintiff’s employment agreement 

(“the Agreement”) with NACFD is within the scope of Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration 

Act. More specifically, the Court must determine whether the Agreement is one 

“evidencing a transaction involving commerce.” See 9 U.S.C. § 2. The Supreme Court 

interprets the scope of this provision as co-extensive with Congress’s power under the 

Commerce Clause. Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., Inc. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, 274–75 

(1995). In other words, quite broadly—the “functional equivalent of ‘affecting interstate 

commerce.’” Id.

In their briefs, the parties submitted no evidence—save for a copy of the Agreement 

itself—to support their respective positions on whether the Agreement affects interstate 

Case 3:19-cv-08101-JJT Document 38 Filed 09/30/19 Page 1 of 2
- 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

commerce. Defendants merely recite the job duties of the Fire Chief generally, as 

enumerated in the Agreement. In doing so, Defendants argue that the Agreement 

“necessarily implicate[s] interstate commerce.” (Reply at 4.) Plaintiff statesin a conclusory 

fashion that “none of the duties identified in the Agreement involve interstate commerce.” 

(Resp. at 4.) 

As Fire Chief, Plaintiff’s duties included “arrang[ing] for the acquisition and 

purchase of equipment, supplies, and services necessary for the operation of NACFD” and 

“hiring . . . any and all new full time, part time, volunteer, and reserve personnel.” (Mot., 

Ex. A at 3.) Contrary to Defendants’ position, these descriptions as listed do not necessarily 

implicate interstate commerce.1 The standard is whether the Agreement affects interstate 

commerce “in fact.” Allied-Bruce, 513 U.S. at 282. The Court will not extrapolate from 

some general job descriptions that Plaintiff did in fact engage in interstate commerce as 

Fire Chief. 

Accordingly, the Court requires the parties to submit additional evidence, in the 

form of an affidavit or otherwise, to shed light on the duties Plaintiff performed in fact, and 

whether those duties affected interstate commerce or not.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED requiring Defendants to submit additional 

evidence, consistent with this Order, within 10 days of this Order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED giving Plaintiff 7 days from the date of Defendants’

supplemental filing to submit his own additional evidence.

Dated this 27th day of September, 2019.

 

1 Defendants assert, without providing evidence, that this required Plaintiff to 

“recruit individuals from other states” and that the “plain terms of [the] Employment 

Agreement provide a list of transactions involving interstate commerce.” The Agreement 

does not state that Plaintiff had to hire people from outside Arizona or purchase equipment 

or supplies from out-of-state. Defendants also point out that the job involved working and 

coordinating with out-of-state governments and agencies. Without more, the Court is

unable to conclude whether performing administrative duties with various governmental 

agencies qualifies as “interstate commerce.” 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-08101-JJT Document 38 Filed 09/30/19 Page 2 of 2