Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02898/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02898-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441nr Notice of Removal

---

- 1 -

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAUN ROBERTS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

OBELISK, INC., a Delaware corporation, et 

al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 18cv2898-LAB (BGS)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

In April of this year, the Court found that Plaintiffs’ claims were arbitrable and ordered

the parties to “proceed immediately to arbitration.” See Dkt. 19 at 16. Despite that clear 

order, more than six months have passed, and Plaintiffs still have not filed an arbitration 

demand. 

Where, as here, a court determines that “all of the claims raised in [an] action are 

subject to arbitration, . . . [a] district court may either stay the action or dismiss it outright.” 

Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale's, Inc., 755 F.3d 1072, 1074 (9th Cir. 2014). Although a 

court has discretion in choosing whether to dismiss or stay proceedings, the Ninth Circuit’s 

“preference” is for district courts to “stay[] an action pending arbitration rather than dismiss[]

it.” MediVas, LLC v. Marubeni Corp., 741 F.3d 4, 9 (9th Cir. 2014). Consistent with that 

preference, this Court previously stayed these proceedings while the parties arbitrated their 

Case 3:18-cv-02898-LAB-BGS Document 25 Filed 11/13/19 PageID.<pageID> 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

claims. In light of the parties’ failure to timely submit an arbitration demand, however, it 

appears dismissal was the appropriate remedy.1

This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all Defendants. This does 

not mean Plaintiffs are free to bring the same suit again; they remain bound by the Court’s 

ruling that their claims must be arbitrated. Instead, this dismissal without prejudice means 

that the parties may, if necessary, file a new suit to confirm any arbitral judgment down the 

road. See 9 U.S.C. § 9 (“[A]t any time within one year after the award is made any party to 

the arbitration may apply to the court so specified for an order confirming the award.”). The 

clerk is directed to enter judgment and close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 12, 2019

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

Chief United States District Judge

 

1 Dismissal is also appropriate because the parties have failed to comply with this Court’s 

instructions. The Court ordered the parties to submit a joint status report every sixty days 

until the arbitration was final. The parties filed status reports on June 28, 2019 and August 

27, 2019, but afterwards failed to file the required updates.

Case 3:18-cv-02898-LAB-BGS Document 25 Filed 11/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2