Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02418/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02418-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards 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

24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Monica Di Giuro, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-02418-PHX-FJM

ORDER

Respondent filed a demand and claim for individual arbitration with JAMS Northern

California, a private dispute resolution provider, in March 2011. (Doc. 2, ex. A).

Nevertheless, petitioner filed this petition to compel arbitration on December 7, 2011, some

9 months later. (Doc. 1). 

"A party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of another to arbitrate

under a written agreement for arbitration may petition any United States district court . . . for

an order directing that such arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in such

agreement." 9 U.S.C. § 4. See, e.g., Jacobs v. USA Track & Field, 374 F.3d 85, 86 (2d Cir.

2004) (refusal to arbitrate is a prerequisite to compelling arbitration under Section 4 of the

Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA")). If the refusal to perform the agreement is at issue, "the

court shall hear and determine such issue." 9 U.S.C. § 4. "[Section] 4 of the FAA does not

confer a right to compel arbitration of any dispute at any time." Volt Information Sciences,

Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University, 489 U.S. 468, 474-75, 109

Case 2:11-cv-02418-FJM Document 26 Filed 05/18/12 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

Petitioner contradicts itself in its reply, asserting that the 2005 Arbitration Agreement

controls. (Doc. 22 at 9). The reply quotes from this agreement, which is purportedly

attached to counsel's declaration, but the cited exhibit is a copy of the 2001 agreement. (Doc.

2 ¶ 7, ex. C). Since respondent's employment ended in May 2004 and the 2001 agreement

was in effect until January 2005, the 2005 agreement is inapplicable to respondent.

- 2 -

S. Ct. 1248, 1253 (1989). Respondent has not refused to arbitrate. Even petitioner concedes

that "both parties have committed to proceed with arbitration of Respondent's claims." (Doc.

22 at 8).

In its petition to compel arbitration, petitioner contends that respondent worked for

petitioner until May 9, 2004 and is bound by the terms of the 2001 Arbitration Agreement.1

(Doc. 1 at 2). The parties' 2001 Arbitration Agreement provides: "We agree to settle the

dispute according to the provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. sections 1-16.

All disputes will be resolved by a single Arbitrator. The Arbitrator shall be selected by

mutual agreement of the parties." (Doc. 2, ex. C at 1). Petitioner "requests that the Court

compel arbitration in accordance with the terms of the Arbitration Policy, in the District of

Arizona." (Doc. 1 at 2). But petitioner acknowledges that "the Agreement itself is silent on

the location of the arbitration hearing." (Doc. 1 at 9).

"24 Hour Fitness' position is that, pursuant to the language of the arbitration

agreements, the proper venue for arbitration is the location in which the dispute between 24

Hour Fitness and Respondent arose." (Doc. 22 at 3). Petitioner's argument rests solely on

its contention that "[i]t would be absurd" to arbitrate anywhere but Arizona (doc. 1 at 9). But

petitioner fails to identify a case or statute which compels arbitration in this District, despite

the lack of a forum selection clause in the agreement. Nothing in the contract provides that

arbitration must occur in Arizona or in the place of respondent's employment.

Respondent has not refused to arbitrate within the meaning of § 4 of the FAA. The

Northern District of California has been the center of all the litigation arising out of this

dispute. It is also the place of petitioner's headquarters. Any action to confirm an arbitration

award should be heard in the Northern District of California. It thus makes sense to arbitrate

Case 2:11-cv-02418-FJM Document 26 Filed 05/18/12 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 -

there. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING petitioner's petition to compel

arbitration. (Doc. 1). The clerk shall enter judgment dismissing this action.

DATED this 17th day of May, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-02418-FJM Document 26 Filed 05/18/12 Page 3 of 3