UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FT. LAUDERDALE DIVISION

Case No.: 0:22cv62090

CHRISTOPHER ALLEN ROLDAN, 

Individuals,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CORAL SPRINGS HONDA

d/b/a PAGE BROTHERS ASSOCIATES, INC. 

A Florida Corporation,

Defendant.

______________________________/

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

COMPLAINT, COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY DISCOVERY

Plaintiff, CHRISTOPHER ALLEN ROLDAN, an individual (hereinafter 

“Mr. Roldan” or “Plaintiff”), by and through his undersigned attorneys, pursuant to 

Rule 7.1, Local Rules of the United States District Court, Southern District of 

Florida, files this his memorandum of law in opposition to the “Motion to Dismiss 

Complaint, Compel Arbitration and Stay Discovery” filed herein by Defendant, 

CORAL SPRINGS HONDA d/b/a PAGE BROTHERS ASSOCIATES, INC., a 

Florida corporation (hereinafter “Coral Springs Honda” or “Defendant”) [DE 11] 

and states as follows in support:

SYNOPSIS OF PROCEEDINGS

Case 0:22-cv-62090-KMW Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/31/2023 Page 1 of 6
This matter involves claims by Mr. Roldan asserted against Coral Springs 

Honda concerning its failure to comply with the Consumer Leasing Act (“CLA”), 

15 U.S.C. § 1667, and its implementing regulations, 12 C.F.R. § 1013 et seq.

(“Regulation M”) during Mr. Roldan’s consumer motor vehicle lease transaction

with Defendant.

As set forth in the well plead allegations of the operative complaint before the 

Court, Coral Springs Honda failed to disclose certain fees it charged Mr. Roldan to 

exercise the lease buyout provision within the subject lease agreement, in 

contravention of 15 U.S.C. § 1667 and 12 CFR § 1013.4(i). Mr. Roldan has also 

asserted that Defendant violated 12 CFR § 1013.3(a) because the purchase option 

price was unclear, inaccurate, and incomplete. Accordingly, Mr. Roldan seeks the 

recovery of actual damages, statutory damages an incidental relief as well as 

attorney’s fees and costs under the provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 1640.

In response to the Complaint, Coral Springs Honda has filed with the Court 

Defendant’s “Motion to Dismiss Complaint, Compel Arbitration and Stay 

Discovery” (“Motion”) [D.E. 11]. Upon careful review of the Motion, Plaintiff 

concedes that arbitration can be compelled by Defendant in light of the binding 

arbitration between the parties found within the subject lease agreement. However, 

Mr. Roldan opposes the Defendant’s request that the instant case be dismissed as 

opposed to being stayed, as further set forth below.

Case 0:22-cv-62090-KMW Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/31/2023 Page 2 of 6
LEGAL ARGUMENT

As more particularly set forth in the Motion, Coral Springs Honda seeks to 

dismiss the claims of Mr. Roldan. (Motion, p. 5). It is Mr. Roldan’s position that a 

dismissal would run contrary to the requirements of the Federal Arbitration Act 

(“FAA”) and is strategically calculated to curtail Mr. Roldan’s ability to obtain relief 

in these proceeding. As detailed in the Declaration of Attorney Joshua Feygin filed 

contemporaneously herewith (“Feygin Declaration”), Plaintiff’s counsel has 

previously represented consumer plaintiffs before the American Arbitration 

Association (“AAA”). Based on the experience of the undersigned, a number of 

arbitration proceedings filed against businesses have been dismissed by the AAA for 

reasons connected with refusal of the business to comply with the requirements of 

the AAA, namely payment of filing fees and arbitrator compensation.

In light of the potential of the AAA to refuse to arbitrate the claims advanced 

herein, Mr. Roldan respectfully requests that the Court stay the instant action 

pending arbitration as opposed to an outright dismissal in order to afford the 

opportunity for the Plaintiff to return to this Court to seek inter alia an enforcement 

order.

To that end, the FAA provides, in pertinent part, that a court compelling 

arbitration “shall, on application of one or more of the parties, stay the trial of the 

action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the 

Case 0:22-cv-62090-KMW Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/31/2023 Page 3 of 6
agreement.” 9 U.S.C. §3 (emphasis added). Absent from the FAA is any statutory 

reference to dismissal. Bender v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 971 F.2d 698, 699 

(11th Cir. 1992); see, also, Albert v. Nat’l Cash Register Co., 874 F.Supp. 1328 (S.D. 

Fla. 1994) [staying arbitration claims]; Craig v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC, 2017 

WL 1533840 (N.D. Fla. January 30, 2017); Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Blue Ocean’s 

Distributing, LLC, 616 F. Supp. 2nd 1284 (S.D. Fla. 2009).

In the Tracfone Wireless, U.S. District Court Judge Ungaro of the Southern 

District of Florida flatly rejected the argument that is now advanced by Defendants 

that the granting of a motion to compel arbitration should result in a dismissal:

The Court begins by noting that, notwithstanding the parties agreement 

to arbitrate, it has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. While 

valid arbitration clauses are to be enforced under the Federal 

Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 3, they do not oust district courts of their 

jurisdiction. See, The Anaconda v. Am. Sugar Refining Co., 322 U.S. 

42, 44, 64 S.Ct. 863, 88 L.Ed. 1117 (1944); Frank v. Am. Gen. Fin., 

Inc., 23 F.Supp.2d 1346, 1350 (S.D.Ala.1998). The Federal Arbitration 

Act states:

If any suit or proceeding be brought in any of the courts of the United 

States upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in 

writing for such arbitration, the court in which such suit is pending,

upon being satisfied that the issue involved in such suit or proceeding 

is referable to arbitration under such an agreement, shall on 

application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until 

such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the 

agreement, providing the applicant for the stay is not in default in 

Case 0:22-cv-62090-KMW Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/31/2023 Page 4 of 6
proceeding with such arbitration. 9 U.S.C. § 3

(emphasis supplied). Id. at 1285

Judge Ungaro further reasoned:

Notwithstanding the express language of the Federal Arbitration Act 

and Plaintiffs request for a stay, Defendants argue that this case should 

be dismissed because all of issues in the complaint are subject to the 

arbitration agreement. Defendants, however, fail to cite any binding 

authority demonstrating that it is appropriate under the Federal 

Arbitration Act for a court to dismiss a case in favor of arbitration 

where a party requests a stay.

Id. (internal footnote omitted)

See, also, Swartz v. Westminster Services, Inc., 2010 WL 3522141, * 1 (M.D. 

Fla Sept. 8, 2010) (“the Court does not agree that the failure to submit this dispute 

to mediation warrants dismissal of Plaintiffs complaint. The law is clear that when 

confronted with an objection that a plaintiff has initiated litigation without satisfying 

arbitration or mediation requirements, courts routinely stay rather than dismiss the 

proceedings to allow for implementation of the agreed- upon dispute resolution 

mechanism”); cf, Cusolito v. Citibank, 2017 WL 8890662 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 6, 2017).

As detailed in the Feygin Declaration, there is a substantial likelihood that the 

AAA will refuse to adjudicate the claims of the Defendant (Murphy Declaration –

p. 6-7). While the Plaintiff hopes that Coral Springs Honda will participate in good 

faith in any arbitration proceeding, in the event Defendant fails to pay the mandated 

arbitration fees or otherwise comply with the rules of the AAA, Mr. Roldan will 

Case 0:22-cv-62090-KMW Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/31/2023 Page 5 of 6
have no recourse if this Court does not retain jurisdiction through the entry of an 

order to stay. Justice and the plain language of the FAA so require that the Court 

retain jurisdiction over this action pending the conclusion of the arbitration 

proceedings.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs respectfully move this Court to stay the instant action (as opposed 

to dismissing it) pending completion of arbitration, with a reservation to enforce any 

arbitration award.

Dated: January 31, 2023

/s/ Joshua E. Feygin

JOSHUA FEYGIN, ESQ.

FL Bar No.: 124685

Email: Josh@JFeyginesq.com

SUE YOUR DEALER – A 

LAW FIRM

1930 Harrison St, Suite 208F

Hollywood, FL 33020

Tel: (954) 228-5674

Fax: (954) 697-0357

Counsel for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January 31, 2023, I electronically filed the 

foregoing document with the Clerk of Court for the U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Florida, using the CM/ECF system, and that the foregoing document was 

served electronically to all counsel of record.

/s/ Joshua E. Feygin

JOSHUA FEYGIN, ESQ.

FL Bar No.: 124685

Case 0:22-cv-62090-KMW Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/31/2023 Page 6 of 6