Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01152/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01152-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

Jose Luis Leal, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Chapman Chevrolet, L.L.C., et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1152-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. 23), plaintiff's response, and

defendants' reply.

I.

Shortly after this action was removed, defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration

(doc. 6). That was followed by a stipulation for the entry of an order compelling arbitration

(doc. 11). We granted the parties' motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration and gave

them six months to arbitrate. The parties failed to arbitrate within the six months and thus on

January 18, 2007 the defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss.

II.

When a proceeding in federal court involves an issue referable to arbitration, a court

may stay the proceeding until the parties arbitrate. See 9 U.S.C. § 3. However, when a valid

and enforceable arbitration provision bars all claims in a case, dismissal is appropriate. See

Chappel v. Laboratory Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 723-25 (9th Cir. 2000). Indeed, when all

Case 2:06-cv-01152-FJM Document 47 Filed 05/30/07 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

 Defendants request that we take judicial notice of this document. See Request for

Judicial Notice (doc. 26) at 2. We deem plaintiff's failure to respond to defendant's request

a consent to the granting of the request. See LRCiv 7.2(i). However, even if we do not take

judicial notice of the document in question, we would reach the same conclusion. Plaintiff

states that "the parties stipulated to arbitration," Response at 8, and has never argued that the

parties entered into an unenforceable or invalid arbitration agreement. 

- 2 -

claims raised in an action are arbitrable, retaining jurisdiction and staying the action serve no

purpose. See Alford v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 975 F.2d 1161, 1164 (5th Cir. 1992)

(citation omitted). 

Defendants argue that we should dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6),

Fed. R. Civ. P. because the sole claim in this case is subject to a valid and binding arbitration

agreement. See Motion to Dismiss at 15-16. On May 23, 2006, the parties stipulated that

plaintiff's claims are governed by a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement. See

Declaration of Philip Wooten (doc. 24) at 2; Stipulated Proposed Order Compelling

Arbitration and Staying Action, Notice of Filing of Proposed Order (doc. 43) Exhibit A (stating

that "the claims that are the subject of this action are governed by the arbitration agreement

dated June 24, 1999, which is valid and enforceable").1

 Because plaintiffs' claims are

arbitrable, we will never reach the merits of the parties' controversy. Rather, our jurisdiction

is limited to compelling arbitration, see 9 U.S.C. § 4, and reviewing any future arbitration

award, see 9 U.S.C. §§ 9-12. Yet plaintiff does not argue that our authority to compel

arbitration or review an arbitration award justifies retaining jurisdiction over this case. Because

plaintiff's claim is barred by the agreement to arbitrate, we grant defendants' motion to dismiss.

III.

From what we have said so far, it is plain that the defendants could have initially moved

to dismiss this case. Instead, they moved to compel arbitration and to stay this action, which

we granted. The case was not arbitrated within the six month period largely due to plaintiff's

failure to participate in good faith. Plaintiff refused to accept the defendants' proposed

Case 2:06-cv-01152-FJM Document 47 Filed 05/30/07 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

2

 We note that plaintiff has failed to serve named defendants John Chapman and Jane

Doe Chapman, either in state court or here. This case was first filed in state court on March

24, 2006, and removed here on April 25, 2006. Since removal, plaintiff has participated in a

case management plan and a Rule 16 scheduling conference. We assume that plaintiff has

abandoned his claims against these defendants and dismiss the complaint as to them pursuant

to Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P., and Rule 41(b), Fed. R. Civ. P.

- 3 -

arbitrator and then proposed an arbitrator that was not qualified under the parties' agreement.

Plaintiff proposed the unqualified arbitrator not once but twice.

In any event, plaintiff's opportunity to arbitrate the claim while this action was still

pending has been lost by plaintiff's failure to timely arbitrate. That opportunity might not have

had significance anyway since the action was subject to dismissal because of the arbitration

agreement.2

IV.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED GRANTING defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. 23).

The dismissal is with prejudice to the filing of any action, but without prejudice to arbitrating

the claim under the parties' agreement. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' request

for attorney fees shall abide the outcome of any motion filed under LRCiv 54.2, after entry of

judgment. FINALLY, IT IS ORDERED dismissing the complaint as to defendants John

Chapman and Jane Doe Chapman.

This action is terminated and the clerk shall enter judgment.

DATED this 30th day of May, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01152-FJM Document 47 Filed 05/30/07 Page 3 of 3