UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

VIKKI A. SIMPSON,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 09-12228-BC

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

LIFENET, INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

______________________________________ /

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION, OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS, 

AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder issued a report and recommendation on September 23,

2009 recommending that the Court grant Defendant LifeNet Incorporated’s motion to dismiss based

upon an arbitration agreement between Plaintiff Vikki A. Simpson and her former employer, Mobile

Medical Response, Inc. (“MMR”) [Dkt. # 2]. See 28 U.S.C. § 636. Plaintiff filed an objection on

October 2, 2009, contending that the report and recommendation should be rejected because

Defendant admitted it was not a signatory to the agreement or an intended third-party beneficiary

of the agreement [Dkt. # 11]. Defendant filed a reply to the objection on October 21, 2009,

contending that Defendant’s status as a third-party beneficiary is irrelevant to the question of

whether Plaintiff is estopped from filing suit against Defendant without first demanding arbitration

pursuant to the terms of the agreement [Dkt. # 12]. For the reasons stated below, the report and

recommendation will be ADOPTED, the objection OVERRULED, and the complaint

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

Plaintiff contends in her complaint that she was wrongfully terminated from her position as

a flight paramedic with MMR in May 2006 because of tortious interference with her employment

1:09-cv-12228-TLL-CEB Doc # 14 Filed 01/05/10 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 181
-2-

contract perpetrated by Defendant. She claims that “on or after May 17, 2006, Defendant made a

series of false statements regarding the Plaintiff to MMR’s CEO and improperly demanded that

adverse employment action be taken against the Plaintiff by MMR.” Pl.’s Cmpl. ¶ 9; [Dkt. # 1].

She contends that those false statements led MMR to terminate her employment. Id. Plaintiff

previously filed a complaint against MMR in Michigan state court, which was dismissed due to an

arbitration agreement that covered her employment contract with MMR, and required that

employment claims be submitted to binding arbitration. See Op. & Order of Judge Darnell Jackson,

Saginaw County Circuit Court # 06-061457-CZ-5 (Jan. 29, 2007); [Dkt. # 2-3]. Defendant LifeNet

similarly moved to dismiss the complaint in this case for failure to state a claim, relying exclusively

on the arbitration provision. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); [Dkt. # 2]. The motion was referred to

Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder for report and recommendation. [Dkt. # 3]. 

After setting forth the facts and relevant law, Magistrate Judge Binder concluded that the

Federal Arbitration Act applied, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1–307. R&R at 6; [Dkt. # 10]. Applying federal law,

he concluded: 

The instant Plaintiff . . . is bringing an action against the non-signatory, LifeNet, for

actions taken in concert with the non-defendant signatory, MMR. Plaintiff’s original

Saginaw County Cause of Action against MMR is virtually identical to the instant

action against LifeNet. The factual basis is exactly the same; the only modification

made in the instant complaint was to remove the wrongful discharge claims (breach

of contract and whistleblower protection) that were brought against MMR while

retaining the tortious interference claim but asserting it against LifeNet rather than

MMR. In addition, the procedural history reveals that the current action also appears

to have been filed in an attempt to avoid the arbitration clause. I therefore suggest

that estoppel precludes the instant action and that Defendant LifeNet’s motion to

dismiss should be granted. 

Id. at 8–9. Magistrate Judge Binder relied primarily on the Fifth Circuit case Grigson v. Creative

Artists Agency, L.L.C., 210 F.3d 524 (5th Cir. 2000). The Grigson court concluded that when the

1:09-cv-12228-TLL-CEB Doc # 14 Filed 01/05/10 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 182
1

Plaintiff makes the conclusory assertion in her objection that “her claims against the

Defendant in the present [matter] have absolutely nothing to do with the arbitration agreement.”

Pl.’s Objection at 3. The assertion is, at best, misleading because her only claim in this lawsuit is

tortious interference with an employment contract covered by the arbitration agreement. 

-3-

signatory to an arbitration agreement brings a claim against a nonsignatory that “makes reference

to or presumes the existence of a written agreement,” the signatory plaintiff is equitably estopped

from filing suit in lieu of arbitration if “the signatory’s claims arise out of and relate directly to the

written agreement, and arbitration is appropriate.” 210 F.3d at 527 (citing MS Dealer Serv. Corp.

v. Franklin, 177 F.3d 942, 947 (11th Cir. 1999)). Although not binding, the Grigson court’s analysis

is persuasive. Particularly where, as here, the lawsuit appears to have been filed against a

nonsignatory to the employment contract in an attempt to avoid the arbitration provision. See R&R

at 8–9. 

Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions, arguing she should not be estopped

from litigating her claim because Defendant is not a signatory to the underlying employment

contract or arbitration agreement, and Defendant admitted at oral argument it was not a third-party

beneficiary to the contract. Plaintiff’s objections will be overruled because Defendant’s status with

respect to the contract is irrelevant to an estoppel claim. A plaintiff, who is the signatory to a

contract with an arbitration provision, is estopped from suing nonsignatory defendants for claims

that “arise out of and relate directly to” the contract, as long as arbitration is appropriate. Grigson,

210 F.3d at 527. Whether the nonsignatory defendant is a third-party beneficiary of the contract is

irrelevant. 

Plaintiff does not object to the remainder of the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions, regarding

the relationship between the claim and the contract1

 and the appropriateness of arbitration. Failure

1:09-cv-12228-TLL-CEB Doc # 14 Filed 01/05/10 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 183
-4-

to raise specific objections relieves the Court of further obligation to review the record. Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s

conclusions and finds them well reasoned and legally sound. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [Dkt.

# 10] is ADOPTED. 

Plaintiff’s objection [Dkt. # 11] is OVERRULED. 

It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint [Dkt. # 2] is

GRANTED. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: January 5, 2010

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on January 5, 2010.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:09-cv-12228-TLL-CEB Doc # 14 Filed 01/05/10 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 184