United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-51018

Summary Calendar

John Lynch; Daxton Hartsfield; Shawn Sakhizada, 

Plaintiffs—Appellants, 

versus

Tesla, Incorporated, 

Defendant—Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:22-CV-597-RP

Before Dennis, Elrod and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Appellants John Lynch, Daxton Hartsfield, and Shawn Sakhizada

(“Appellants”), former employees of Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”), alleged that the 

company violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification 

(“WARN”) Act and its California analogue. After the magistrate court

partially granted Appellants’ motion for a protective order requiring Tesla to 

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 5, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-51018 Document: 00516809944 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/05/2023
No. 22-10953

2

issue notice of the lawsuit to potentially affected employees, the district court 

adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation that this lawsuit be 

dismissed in favor of arbitration. Appellants now complain that the district

court erred in dismissing the case prior to Tesla issuing notice to potential 

plaintiffs. Because the district court committed no error, we AFFIRM.

Appellants allege that Tesla violated the WARN Act and its California 

analogue by failing to give 60-days’ notice to employees prior to terminating 

them as a part of a mass layoff and requiring employees who had been 

terminated to execute separation agreements fully releasing legal claims 

against Tesla. Tesla has arbitration agreements with all employees. Shortly 

after filing the present lawsuit, Appellants moved for a protective order and

Tesla moved to dismiss to compel arbitration. The magistrate judge first 

granted Appellants’ motion in part, ordering Tesla to notify terminated 

employees “of the existence of [the] lawsuit.” Lynch v. Tesla, Inc., No. 1:22-

CV-00597-RP, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 16, 2022). The magistrate court next 

recommended that the district court dismiss the lawsuit in favor of

arbitration. Appellants did not object to the magistrate court’s 

recommendation, which the district court adopted. Appellants then filed a

motion for reconsideration, arguing that the district court should have 

considered the magistrate judge’s intent to grant preliminary relief in the 

form of notice prior to dismissing the lawsuit. The district court denied the 

motion.

Appellants argue that the district court erred in dismissing the lawsuit 

without first requiring Tesla to issue notice to all potential class members 

according to the magistrate’s judge’s order. Appellants’ challenges to the 

district court’s orders dismissing the lawsuit and denying the motion for 

reconsideration are reviewed for plain error. Longoria Next Friend of M.L. v. 

San Benito Indep. Consol. Sch. Dist., 942 F.3d 258, 270 (5th Cir. 2019); 

Martinez v. Crystal City Indep. Sch. Dist., 250 F.3d 744 (5th Cir. 2001).

Case: 22-51018 Document: 00516809944 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/05/2023
No. 22-10953

3

Appellants argue that their failure to object to the magistrate court’s 

recommendation is inconsequential because the district court should have 

considered the magistrate judge’s apparent intent to have Tesla issue notice 

to potential members in the class prior to dismissing the case. However, the 

district court was under no obligation to accept the magistrate judge’s 

proposed timeline for reviewing the motions pending in this case, especially 

since the magistrate judge’s recommendation for dismissal pertained to a 

dispositive motion where the magistrate court is limited to a 

recommendation, rather than an order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)

Appellants also argue that it was improper for the district court to 

dismiss and compel arbitration because Tesla’s objection to the magistrate 

judge’s order to issue notice and emergency motion to stay the order were 

pending when the case was dismissed. Appellants rely on the Fifth Circuit’s 

assertion that dismissal in favor of arbitration is proper “when all of the 

issues raised in the district court must be submitted to arbitration.” Alford v. 

Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 975 F.2d 1161, 1164 (5th Cir. 1992) (citations 

omitted). However, Alford stands only for the general proposition that 

dismissal, rather than a stay, is proper when all issues of merit are arbitrable, 

not that a case cannot be dismissed to compel arbitration when there are 

objections or motions pending. Id. Here, the magistrate judge found that the 

entire case was subject to arbitration. The district court committed no error 

in adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation prior to ruling on Tesla’s 

objection and emergency motion. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-51018 Document: 00516809944 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/05/2023