Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00468/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00468-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Arthur Berger, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Showcase Automotive Limited

Partnership, doing business as

Camelback Volkswagen, Camelback

Volkswagen-Subaru, Camelback Subaru,

Camelback Volkswagen Subaru Mazda,

and Showcase Motors, Inc., the general

partner of Showcase Automotive Limited

Partnership,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-00468-PHX-NVW

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss and Compel

Arbitration. (Doc. 7.) On March 10, 2011, Plaintiff filed his complaint for damages against

Defendants for “discrimination in the workplace based on race, religion and retaliation . . .

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act...and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 . . . .” (Doc. 1.)

Defendants argue that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter because

the parties agreed, in an arbitration agreement signed by Plaintiff, to “resolve by arbitration

all statutory, contractual and common law claims or controversies, past, present or future,

that arise out of or relate to [Plaintiff’s] hiring, employment, or termination of employment

by [Camelback Volkswagen Subaru Mazda.]” (Doc. 7-1.) Defendant has therefore asked this

Court to “dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice in its entirety[,]” order the parties to

Case 2:11-cv-00468-NVW Document 12 Filed 05/11/11 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

1

Paragraph 26 of the arbitration agreement provides: “Filing of Lawsuit: Either party may

bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction to compel arbitration under this

Agreement. In the event a party files a lawsuit over a matter which is subject to arbitration

under this Agreement, the other party shall give notice of the existence of this Agreement and

if the lawsuit is not dismissed within ten (10) days receipt of that notice, the party filing the

lawsuit shall be liable for any and all costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in dismissing the

lawsuit.” (Doc. 7-1 at 7.)

- 2 -

arbitration under the terms of the parties’ arbitration agreement, and award Defendants their

attorneys’ fees and costs under the arbitration agreement1

 or A.R.S. § 12-341.01. (Doc. 7.)

Plaintiff does not dispute Defendants’ contention that all of the claims raised in his

complaint are subject to the arbitration agreement. Indeed, Plaintiff does not oppose

arbitration of his claims; rather, he simply opposes his complaint being dismissed “with

prejudice in its entirety” and Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff

argues that it is more consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 3, and the

“practice of the Judges of this District” for the Court to either stay this action pending the

arbitration or dismiss the action without prejudice and retain jurisdiction to later confirm any

award that might result from the arbitration. (Doc. 8.) Plaintiff further argues that an award

of attorneys’ fees is inappropriate under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 because Plaintiff’s claims arise

under federal statutory law, not state contract law, and untimely under the arbitration

agreement because the propriety of any fee award is itself subject to arbitration. 

Because Plaintiff does not oppose arbitration, Defendants’ motion will be granted with

respect to Defendants’ request that the parties be ordered to arbitration in accordance with

the terms of the arbitration agreement. As to the disposition of this matter, the Court agrees

with Plaintiff that this action should be stayed pending the arbitration. See Bushley v. Credit

Suisse First Boston, 360 F.3d 1149, 1153 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004) (endorsing Second Circuit’s

approach of staying action pending arbitration because “dismissal renders an order

appealable . . . [and] unnecessary delay of the arbitral process through appellate review is

disfavored”). Finally, the Court will refer Defendants’ request for an award of attorneys’

fees and costs in connection with this motion to the arbitrator for resolution.

Case 2:11-cv-00468-NVW Document 12 Filed 05/11/11 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

- 3 -

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss

and Compel Arbitration (Doc. 7) is denied with respect to the request to dismiss this action

with prejudice and granted with respect to the request to compel arbitration.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are directed to arbitration of Plaintiff’s

claims in accordance with the terms of the parties’ arbitration agreement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is stayed pending the outcome of

arbitration pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 3 and further order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint or separate status reports

concerning the arbitration by November 10, 2011.

DATED this 10th day of May, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00468-NVW Document 12 Filed 05/11/11 Page 3 of 3