Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01115/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01115-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

Ryan Jones, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Darden Restaurants, Inc., a Florida

Corporation; GMRI, Inc., a Florida

corporation, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-01115-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Stipulation and Motion to Stay Case Pending

Completion of Arbitration (Doc. 16). 

On June 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court requesting relief under Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Doc. 1). In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that

Defendant wrongfully discriminated against him in the terms and conditions of his

employment and he was subjected to sexual harassment and a discriminatory hostile work

environment based on his sex. (Id. at 4). On August 23, 2011, the Parties filed a stipulation

with the Court conceding that this litigation is subject to mandatory arbitration pursuant to

contracts between the Parties. 

Although 9 U.S.C. section 3 directs the Court, upon application by one of the parties,

to grant a stay pending arbitration, the Court retains discretion to dismiss the case instead.

Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir.1988). Because all of Plaintiff’s

Case 2:11-cv-01115-JAT Document 17 Filed 12/19/11 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 -

claims are covered by binding agreements to arbitrate, the Court will dismiss his claims

without prejudice to reopen upon the conclusion of arbitration proceedings, if necessary.

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Stipulation and Motion to Stay Case Pending Completion

of Arbitration is denied (Doc. 16).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are directed to proceed to arbitration

in accordance with the terms of the arbitration provisions governing Plaintiff’s claims.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that this case is dismissed without prejudice. If the

Parties need to reappear before this Court for any reason relating to the arbitration of the

claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1), either party may move to reopen this case within

the applicable statute of limitations for review of an arbitration award. 

DATED this 19th day of December, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01115-JAT Document 17 Filed 12/19/11 Page 2 of 2