Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02370/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02370-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
ABP Corporation
Defendant
Healthy Choice SGH, LLC
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

HEALTHY CHOICE SGH, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ABP CORPORATION,

Defendant.

HEALTHY CHOICE SM, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ABP CORPORATION,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION 

TO LIFT STAY AND DISMISS THE 

PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

CIV. NO. 2:14-2370 WBS DAD

CIV. NO. 2:14-2371 WBS DAD

----oo0oo----

Defendant ABP Corporation (“ABP”) brings this motion to 

lift the stay of proceedings in these two actions and dismiss, 

without prejudice, the Complaints filed by plaintiffs Healthy 

Choice SGH, LLC (“Action I”) and Healthy Choice SM, LLC (“Action 

Case 2:14-cv-02370-WBS-DAD Document 27 Filed 10/16/15 Page 1 of 5
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

II”). ABP, the owner and franchisor of the Au Bon Pain bakery 

and café chain, entered into franchise agreements with plaintiffs 

to operate Au Bon Pain franchises in Sacramento, California. 

(Mot. at 2-3 (Action I Docket No. 23-1).) The agreements 

contained mandatory arbitration and venue provisions requiring 

the parties to arbitrate all franchise disputes in Massachusetts 

before the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”). (Id.)

On October 8, 2014, plaintiffs brought their actions in 

this district, asserting various claims against ABP relating to 

their franchise agreements. (Actions I & II Docket Nos. 1.)

1 

ABP then filed a petition in the District Court for the District 

of Massachusetts to compel plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims,

and it concurrently moved this court to stay plaintiffs’ actions

pending the District of Massachusetts’s decision. (Action I

Docket No. 8.) On February 25, 2015, the court granted ABP’s 

motion to stay and ordered ABP to submit a Status Report 

following the District of Massachusetts’s decision that addressed

the arbitrability of the issues raised in plaintiffs’ Complaints 

and the status of any pending arbitration. (See Action I Docket 

No. 20; Action II Docket No. 13.)

On June 9, 2015, Massachusetts District Judge William 

G. Young granted ABP’s petition, ruled that plaintiffs were 

estopped from objecting to the arbitration of their franchise 

disputes, and ordered all such disputes to binding arbitration in 

Boston, Massachusetts before AAA Arbitrator Frederick E. 

Connelly, Jr., Case No. 01-14-0001-3684. (See ABP’s Status 

 

1 The court consolidated the actions on December 18, 

2014. (See Action I Docket No. 9; Action II Docket No. 7.)

Case 2:14-cv-02370-WBS-DAD Document 27 Filed 10/16/15 Page 2 of 5
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

Report ¶¶ 6-7, Ex. A (Action I Docket Nos. 21 to 21-1); Dolan 

Decl. ¶¶ 2-3, Ex. A (Action I Docket Nos. 23-2 to 23-3).) During 

a preliminary hearing before Arbitrator Connelly on July 17, 

2015, plaintiffs and ABP agreed to a discovery and briefing 

schedule and set the arbitration hearing for January 25 through 

January 29, 2016 in Boston, Massachusetts. (Dolan Decl. ¶¶ 2-3, 

Ex. A.) Plaintiffs’ attorney of record in the actions here, 

Bryan Dillon, also represents plaintiffs in those arbitration 

proceedings. (Id. ¶ 2, Ex. A at 2.)

ABP now moves to lift the stay and dismiss, without 

prejudice, the proceedings in this district. (See Mot.) 

Plaintiffs have submitted a statement of non-opposition to ABP’s

motion. (Action I Docket No. 26.) ABP represents, and 

plaintiffs do not dispute, that all of plaintiffs’ claims here

are subject to Judge Young’s order and are presently being 

resolved in the arbitration proceedings in Massachusetts. (Dolan 

Decl. ¶¶ 2-3; Mot. at 4, 6, 10.) Plaintiffs’ statement of nonopposition demonstrates their assent to these affirmations.

A district court has the discretion to dismiss a 

proceeding when “the arbitration clause [is] broad enough to bar 

all of the plaintiff’s claims.” Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 

Inc., 864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988); see Green v. Ameritech 

Corp., 200 F.3d 967, 973 (6th Cir. 2000) (finding that “the 

weight of authority clearly supports dismissal of the case when 

all of the issues raised in the district court must be submitted 

to arbitration”). The arbitration clauses in plaintiffs’ 

franchise agreements provide that “any dispute, claim or 

controversy arising out of or relating to” the franchise 

Case 2:14-cv-02370-WBS-DAD Document 27 Filed 10/16/15 Page 3 of 5
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

agreements, “the breach [t]hereof, the rights and obligations of 

the parties [t]hereto, or the entry, making, interpretation or 

performance of either party under” the franchise agreements 

“shall be settled by arbitration administered by the American 

Arbitration Association” and “shall take place before a sole 

arbitrator . . . in Boston, Massachusetts,” whose decision “shall 

be final and binding.” (Mot. to Stay Dolan Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A 

¶ 14.3 (Action I Docket No. 8-3).)

The actions here assert identical claims relating to

plaintiffs’ franchise agreements. The Complaints allege that ABP 

failed to register its franchise offers and to provide required 

franchise disclosure documents in violation of Federal Trade 

Commission regulations, 16 C.F.R. § 436.2; the California Unfair 

Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.; and the 

California Franchise Investment Law, Cal. Corp. Code §§ 31000 et 

seq. (See Actions I & II Docket Nos. 1.) Because the 

arbitration clauses in plaintiffs’ franchise agreements cover all 

of the issues raised in these matters, the court may dismiss both 

actions. See Sparling, 864 F.2d at 638.

Even without the arbitration provisions mandating 

dismissal, the franchise agreements also contain forum clauses 

stating that plaintiffs “irrevocably submit[] to the jurisdiction 

of the courts of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in any suit, 

action or proceeding arising out of or relating to [the franchise 

agreements] or any other dispute between the [the parties], and 

[the parties] irrevocably agree that all claims in respect of any 

such suit, action or proceeding must be brought and/or defended 

therein except with respect to matters which are under the 

Case 2:14-cv-02370-WBS-DAD Document 27 Filed 10/16/15 Page 4 of 5
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

5

exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Courts of the United 

States, which shall be brought and/or defended in the Federal 

District Court for the District of Massachusetts sitting in 

Boston, Massachusetts.” (Mot. to Stay Dolan Decl. Ex. A ¶ 14.4.) 

Because the parties have agreed to a particular forum, dismissal 

is also appropriate in order to give effect to the parties’ 

contractual intent.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant ABP

Corporation’s motion to lift the stay and dismiss the proceedings 

without prejudice be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. These 

actions are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.

Dated: October 15, 2015

Case 2:14-cv-02370-WBS-DAD Document 27 Filed 10/16/15 Page 5 of 5