Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01530/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01530-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 09:1 U.S. Arbitration 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

Evergreen Maintenance Center, Inc.,

an Oregon corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Air Universal, Ltd. a Jordanian limited

corporation,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-1530-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff moves to compel arbitration. Doc. 12. For the reasons stated below, the

Court will compel arbitration.

On July 20, 2010, Plaintiff Evergreen Maintenance Center, Inc. (“Evergreen”) filed

a complaint seeking to compel Defendant Air Universal Ltd. (“Air Universal”) to arbitrate

a dispute that arose after the parties entered into a binding settlement agreement. Doc. 1.

The complaint alleges that Plaintiff is the wronged party in the dispute. Id. at 3. The

complaint also alleges that the settlement agreement contains a dispute resolution clause

whereby the parties are required to arbitrate disputes arising from “parts delivery issues.”

Id. at 4. The complaint further alleges that the current dispute is a parts delivery issue. Id.

Plaintiff moved on August 12, 2010 to compel Defendant to submit to arbitration.

Doc. 12. Plaintiff asserts that it notified Defendant of Plaintiff’s intent to arbitrate the

dispute, that Defendant responded by expressing its intent to contest arbitrability, that

subsequently Defendant’s counsel indicated Defendant will likely agree to arbitration, and

that Defendant has not yet formally stipulated to arbitration. Id. Defendant responded on

Case 2:10-cv-01530-DGC Document 19 Filed 10/18/10 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

1

 Plaintiff’s request for oral argument is denied because the issues have been fully

briefed and oral argument will not aid the Court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b);

Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998).

- 2 -

August 26, 2010, by asserting that Plaintiff’s motion is premature on account of Defendant’s

answer not yet being due. Doc. 14. Defendant also asserted that it had previously informed

Plaintiff of its agreement to arbitrate, and sought to dismiss the motion as moot. Id. In its

reply on September 2, 2010, Plaintiff maintains that it still wants this Court to compel

arbitration because Defendant has not agreed to Plaintiff’s proposed stipulation to arbitrate.

Doc. 15. In an objection to Plaintiff’s reply, filed on September 27, 2010, Defendant asserts

that it had countered by email Plaintiff’s proposed stipulation with its own stipulation on

September 1, prior to Plaintiff filing its reply with this Court. Doc. 18 at 2. The motions

have been fully briefed. Docs. 12, 14, 15.1

 Defendant also filed an answer to the complaint

on September 24, 2010, where it explicitly does not contest arbitration. Doc. 17.

This case represents a wholly unnecessary lawsuit over a non-dispute. Defendant

does not contest arbitration, but neither have the parties succeeded in the relatively simple

task of commencing the arbitration proceeding. Because “[f]ederal policy favors arbitration,”

Davis v. O’Melveny & Myers, 485 F.3d 1066, 1072 (9th Cir. 2007), and further litigation in

this Court would be a waste of time and resources, the Court will compel arbitration. Both

sides should think more seriously in the future before multiplying litigation and costs

unnecessarily.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration (Doc.12) is granted;

2. The parties shall commence arbitration proceedings by November 12, 2010.

3. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action.

DATED this 18th day of October, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01530-DGC Document 19 Filed 10/18/10 Page 2 of 2