Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02416/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02416-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Kevin Conlogue, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-02416-PHX-FJM

ORDER

Respondent filed an arbitration demand with JAMS, a private dispute resolution

provider, in March 2011. (Doc. 1 at 4). Nevertheless, petitioner filed this petition to compel

arbitration on December 7, 2011, some 9 months later. (Doc. 1). Respondent was served

May 7, 2012, and has not yet responded. 

"A party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of another to arbitrate

under a written agreement for arbitration may petition any United States district court . . . for

an order directing that such arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in such

agreement." 9 U.S.C. § 4. See, e.g., Jacobs v. USA Track & Field, 374 F.3d 85, 86 (2d Cir.

2004) (refusal to arbitrate is a prerequisite to compelling arbitration under section 4 of the

Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA")). If the refusal to perform the agreement is at issue, "the

court shall hear and determine such issue." 9 U.S.C. § 4. "[Section] 4 of the FAA does not

confer a right to compel arbitration of any dispute at any time." Volt Information Sciences,

Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University, 489 U.S. 468, 474-75, 109

Case 2:11-cv-02416-FJM Document 18 Filed 05/17/12 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 -

S. Ct. 1248, 1253 (1989). Respondent has not refused to arbitrate. He "has previously

demanded arbitration of these claims" in another forum. (Doc. 1 at 2). 

Respondent is bound by the terms of the 2001 Arbitration Agreement, (doc. 1 at 2, 7),

which provides: "We agree to settle the dispute according to the provisions of the Federal

Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. sections 1-16. All disputes will be resolved by a single Arbitrator.

The Arbitrator shall be selected by mutual agreement of the parties." (Doc. 2, ex. C at 1).

Petitioner "requests that the Court compel arbitration in accordance with the terms of the

Arbitration Policy, in the District of Arizona." (Doc. 1 at 2). But petitioner acknowledges

that "the Agreement itself is silent on the location of the arbitration hearing." (Doc. 1 at 9).

Petitioner's argument rests solely on its contention that "[i]t would be absurd" to

arbitrate anywhere but Arizona (doc. 1 at 9). But petitioner fails to identify a case or statute

which compels arbitration in this District, despite the lack of a forum selection clause in the

agreement. Nothing in the contract provides that arbitration must occur in Arizona or in the

place of respondent's employment.

Respondent has not refused to arbitrate within the meaning of § 4 of the FAA. The

Northern District of California has been the center of all the litigation arising out of this

dispute. It is also the place of petitioner's headquarters. Any action to confirm an arbitration

award should be heard in the Northern District of California. It thus makes sense to arbitrate

there. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING petitioner's petition to compel

arbitration. (Doc. 1). The clerk shall enter judgment dismissing this action.

DATED this 17th day of May, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-02416-FJM Document 18 Filed 05/17/12 Page 2 of 2