Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01094/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01094-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

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

Noodles Development, LP, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Latham Noodles, LLC; Clifton Park

Noodles, LLC; Jennifer Matteo; Chris

Holmes; Todd Leach; Todd Bronson;

Mark Matteo, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-01094-PHX-NVW

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case and Proceed with Litigation.

(Doc. 35.) The Court will grant the motion.

Plaintiff Noodles Development (“Franchisor”) filed suit in May 2009 against

Defendants, claiming trademark and trade dress infringement, trade secret misappropriation,

and breach of contract. Defendants collectively moved to compel arbitration, and this Court

granted their motion in August 2009. (See Doc. 27.) This Court stayed the case, but

Franchisor did not file a demand for arbitration until January 2010, and may not have timely

paid its share of the arbitration fees. These delays prompted this Court to enter final

judgment requiring arbitration. (See Docs. 30, 34.)

Franchisor now informs this Court that it has paid its share of the arbitration fees.

Further, Franchisor states that, soon after it initiated arbitration, Defendants’ arbitration

counsel (Mario Herman) stopped representing all Defendants save for Chris Holmes and

Case 2:09-cv-01094-NVW Document 41 Filed 01/20/11 Page 1 of 4
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 -

Todd Leach. Holmes and Leach answered the demand for arbitration, but refused to pay

their share of the arbitration fees. The remaining Defendants did not answer the demand or

otherwise appear. Franchisor therefore filed the motion to reopen at issue here, asking this

Court to declare that all Defendants have waived their right to arbitrate.

Before responding, Defendants’ litigation counsel (Mario Herman and Lang Baker

& Klain) withdrew, through appropriate procedures, from representing all Defendants except

Leach. Leach then filed a response to Franchisor’s motion to reopen. Leach asserted that,

about a week after Franchisor filed its motion, he paid his share of the arbitration fees. No

other Defendant responded to Franchisor’s motion (although Latham Noodles and Clifton

Park Noodles could not do so because they are not natural persons, and therefore incapable

of representing themselves pro se).

All Defendants except Leach — which the Court will refer to as the unrepresented

Defendants — have waived their right to arbitrate. “To demonstrate waiver of the right to

arbitrate, a party must show: (1) knowledge of an existing right to compel arbitration; (2) acts

inconsistent with that existing right; and (3) prejudice to the party opposing arbitration

resulting from such inconsistent acts.” United States v. Park Place Assocs., Ltd., 563 F.3d

907, 921 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). First, the unrepresented

Defendants moved to compel arbitration, demonstrating their knowledge of such a right.

Second, they acted inconsistently with that right by failing to respond to the demand for

arbitration, or (in Holmes’s case) responding but otherwise stalling by refusing to pay

required fees. Third, Franchisor has suffered prejudice — the unrepresented Defendants

forced Franchisor out of this Court and into arbitration, and then refused to arbitrate, causing

Franchisor to incur additional costs (such as the cost of this motion) and otherwise delaying

and frustrating Franchisor’s right to resolve its grievances. Franchisor itself caused some

delay when it waited four months to file an arbitration demand, but the unrepresented

Defendants conduct since that time nonetheless shows that they have waived their right to

arbitrate.

Case 2:09-cv-01094-NVW Document 41 Filed 01/20/11 Page 2 of 4
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 -

Whether Leach also waived is somewhat more difficult because Leach has now begun

paying arbitration fees. However, Ninth Circuit precedent indicates that this has little effect

on the waiver analysis if the allegedly waiving party did not begin participating until after

it faced the prospect of being forced back into court. In Brown v. Dillards, Inc., 430 F.3d

1004 (9th Cir. 2005), the Ninth Circuit resolved a case in which Dillards had required its

employees to agree to arbitrate employment disputes such as wrongful termination.

Sometime later, Dillards fired employee Stephanie Brown, and Brown demanded arbitration,

alleging wrongful termination. Dillards refused to answer the demand or pay its share of the

arbitration fees, so Brown filed suit. In response, Dillards moved to compel arbitration. Id.

at 1006–09. The district court denied Dillards motion, and the Ninth Circuit found two bases

for affirming. First, Dillards had defaulted in its obligation to arbitrate, thus bringing the

case within the Federal Arbitration Act’s exception for cases in which “the applicant for the

stay [of litigation in favor of arbitration] is . . . in default in proceeding with such arbitration.”

See id. at 1009–12; 9 U.S.C. § 3. Second, Dillards had waived its right to arbitrate by

knowing that it had such a right, refusing to participate when Brown demanded arbitration,

and causing prejudice to Brown through delay and unnecessary costs. Brown, 430 F.3d at

1012–13.

Like Dillards, Defendant Leach expressed his preference to arbitrate, then refused to

participate when Franchisor actually demanded arbitration. When Franchisor moved to

reopen, Leach finally paid up and returned to this Court to say that he is now ready to

arbitrate. Dillards may also have been ready to arbitrate after Brown filed suit, but just as

it was too late for Dillards then, it is too late for Leach now. See also Sink v. Aden Enters.,

Inc., 352 F.3d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 2003) (refusing to compel arbitration where party had

failed to pay fees and arbitrator had declared default; expressing concern that compelling

additional arbitration “would also allow a party refusing to cooperate with arbitration to

indefinitely postpone litigation” and frustrate Federal Arbitration Act’s purpose to promote

“efficient and expeditious resolution of claims”). Leach knew of his right to arbitrate, acted

Case 2:09-cv-01094-NVW Document 41 Filed 01/20/11 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

inconsistently with that right by failing to pay arbitration fees, and prejudiced Franchisor

through delay and extra costs. Leach therefore waived his right to arbitrate.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case and Proceed

with Litigation (Doc. 35) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court’s Judgment (Doc. 34) is VACATED.

Given that all Defendants have already answered Plaintiff’s complaint (see Doc. 16), the

Court will soon issue an order setting a scheduling conference.

DATED this 19th day of January, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-01094-NVW Document 41 Filed 01/20/11 Page 4 of 4