Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01788/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01788-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Maxwell Monsanto, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

DWW Partners, LLLP, an Arizona limited

liability partnership, d/b/a Right Honda;

DWW AZ, Inc., an Arizona corporation,

d/b/a Right Honda; David Wilson

Automotive Group, a California

corporation, d/b/a Right Honda, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-01788-PHX-FJM

ORDER

Plaintiff Maxwell Monsanto brings this employment discrimination, retaliation, and

constructive discharge action against defendants operating as Right Honda. The court has

before it defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings (doc. 11), plaintiff’s

response (doc. 16), and defendants’ reply (doc. 19).

Defendants contend that plaintiff agreed to arbitrate employment-related disputes

when he began employment at Right Honda, a car dealership, in October 2008. In support,

they offer documents entitled “Employee Acknowledgment and Agreement” and

“Comprehensive Agreement Employment At-will and Arbitration,” both containing

arbitration agreements and apparently signed by plaintiff on October 1, 2008. Plaintiff

Case 2:09-cv-01788-FJM Document 23 Filed 12/02/09 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 -

responds with an affidavit from a forensic examiner opining that the signatures are probably

not genuine based on a comparison with eight unidentified documents provided by plaintiff.

Plaintiff also personally avers that he did not agree to arbitrate any employment dispute with

Right Honda. He does not, however, aver that he did not sign either document. Plaintiff

charges the defendants with manufacturing evidence and requests a jury trial to determine

the validity of the arbitration agreements.

By way of reply, defendants offer a third arbitration agreement contained in plaintiff’s

application for employment and apparently signed by plaintiff on September 29, 2008. They

also submit an affidavit from an examiner who reviewed over fifty documents from

plaintiff’s personnel file, including a variety of forms plaintiff apparently signed on October

1, 2008. The examiner claims to have identified the signatures on the application and the

employee acknowledgment as plaintiff’s. He also says that there is a strong probability that

plaintiff signed the comprehensive agreement.

Because defendants have offered new evidence in their reply, we will grant plaintiff

the opportunity to respond and to submit appropriate and specific affidavits.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff shall file a response to defendants’

reply (doc. 19) no later than ten days from the filing of this order.

DATED this 1st day of December, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01788-FJM Document 23 Filed 12/02/09 Page 2 of 2