Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00538/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00538-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Defendants moved the Court to remand the matter to arbitration and to either dismiss the 

matter or to stay it pending resolution at arbitration. (Doc. 12) Plaintiff filed his notice of nonopposition to the motion but requested the Court retain jurisdiction to enforce the judgment issued by 

the arbitrator.1 (Doc. 17) Defendants oppose the Court retaining jurisdiction and assert that, should 

the need for enforcement of the arbitrator’s decision arise in the future, the parties may “make use of 

the appropriate procedures at that time, if necessary.” (Doc. 18 at 2) 

The Federal Arbitration Act provides that written arbitration agreements “shall be valid, 

irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of 

any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. A party seeking to enforce arbitration agreement may petition the Court 

for “an order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the 

agreement.” 9 U.S.C. § 4. 

 

1

In light of the notice of non-opposition, the hearing on the motion to compel arbitration is VACATED.

BENJAMIN PARSONS, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

KAG WEST, LLC, et al.

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00538 --- JLT 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND ORDER 

STAYING THE CASE

(Doc. 15)

Case 1:15-cv-00538-JLT Document 19 Filed 06/10/15 Page 1 of 3
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

The Court’s role in applying the FAA is “limited to determining whether a valid agreement to 

arbitrate exists and, if so, whether the agreement encompasses the dispute as issue.” Lifescan, Inc. v. 

Premier Diabetic Servs., Inc., 363 F.3d 1010, 1012 (9th Cir. 2004). To determine whether an 

arbitration agreement encompasses particular claims, the Court looks to the plain language of the 

agreement, and “[i]n the absence of any express provision excluding a particular grievance from 

arbitration . . . only the most forceful evidence of a purpose to exclude the claim from arbitration can 

prevail.” United Steelworkers of Am. v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 584-86 (1960). 

Because the FAA “is phrased in mandatory terms,” “the standard for demonstrating arbitrability is not 

a high one [and] a district court has little discretion to deny an arbitration motion.” Republic of 

Nicaragua v. Standard Fruit Co., 937 F.2d 469, 475 (9th Cir. 1991).

“[A]ny doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of 

arbitration.” Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25 (1983). As a 

result, arbitration should only be denied when “it may be said with positive assurance that the 

arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.” AT&T Tech., 

Inc. v. Communs. Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 650 (1986). It is well-established that “arbitration 

provides a forum for resolving disputes more expeditiously and with greater flexibility than litigation.” 

Lifescan, 363 F.3d at 1011. 

Here, there is no dispute that the claims are subject to arbitration. (Doc. 17) The dispute 

concerns only whether this matter should be dismissed or stayed.2 Notably, the arbitration agreement 

does not contain consent by both parties that the arbitration award be confirmed. This would weigh in 

favor of dismissal of the action. However, the parties have agreed the arbitration is binding. (Doc. 12-

2 at 4) This confers power on the Court to confirm the award. Stater Bros. Markets v. Int'l Bhd. of 

Teamsters, Local 63 ex rel. Lukenbill, 2013 WL 3449761, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 3, 2013). Likewise, 

the parties have agreed they will undergo arbitration according to the rules of AAA. Those rules 

permit confirmation of the award. “Employment Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures” Rule 

42(c) [“Parties to these procedures shall be deemed to have consented that judgment upon the 

arbitration award may be entered in any federal or state court having jurisdiction.”]; See Idea Nuova, 

 

2Under the FAA, the Court is authorized to the stay the matter. 9 U.S.C. § 3.

Case 1:15-cv-00538-JLT Document 19 Filed 06/10/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Inc. v. GM Licensing Grp., Inc., 617 F.3d 177, 181 (2d Cir. 2010) [consent to AAA rules equates to 

consent for confirmation of the arbitration award]. These factors weigh in favor of staying the action.

Indeed, the Seventh Circuit has adopted the view that a stay is the most reasonable approach: 

“[I]t would be “wasteful” and inconsistent “with principles of judicial economy” for a court which has 

jurisdiction of the parties to be required to dismiss the parties, and to compel one of them to sue in 

another forum to enforce its award under § 9. In this case, identical reasoning leads to the conclusion 

that it is wasteful and uneconomical for the district court, which has jurisdiction of the parties, to 

dismiss them and compel one of them to sue in another forum to vacate an award under § 10.” Denver 

& Rio Grande W. R. Co. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 868 F. Supp. 1244, 1250 (D. Kan. 1994) aff'd, 119 F.3d 

847 (10th Cir. 1997) and aff'd, 119 F.3d 847 (10th Cir. 1997) quoting In re VMS Sec. Litig., 21 F.3d 

139, 145 (7th Cir. 1994). The Court agrees. 

ORDER

For these reasons, the Court ORDERS:

1. The motion to compel arbitration (Doc. 12) is GRANTED;

2. The matter is STAYED pending completion of the arbitration;

3. Every 120 days and no later than 30 days after the entry of the arbitrator’s award, the 

parties SHALL file a joint statement setting forth the progress of the mediation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00538-JLT Document 19 Filed 06/10/15 Page 3 of 3