Opinion ID: 6337784
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Miraca’s Motion to Dismiss

Text: On September 26, 2019, Miraca moved to dismiss the retaliation claim with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(3). Miraca argued that Dorsa could not litigate his retaliation claim in court because the arbitration clause stipulated that “any dispute, claim or disagreement arising out of or in connection with” the employment agreement must be resolved through mediation and arbitration. (Employment Agreement, R. 95-1, PageID 758.) According to Miraca, Dorsa’s retaliation claim arises “out of or in connection with” the employment agreement because that language “cover[s] all interactions between the employer and the employee.” (Def.’s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss, R. 94, PageID 739–40 (emphasis added).) By advancing this argument, Miraca asked the district court to find that the arbitration clause encompassed Dorsa’s retaliation claim. In other words, Miraca invited the district court to rule on the scope of the arbitration clause. When Dorsa opposed Miraca’s motion to dismiss, he argued that the arbitration clause did not cover his retaliation claim because the claim exists independently from the employment agreement. On reply, Miraca then asserted for the first time that the district court did not have the authority to rule on a threshold question of arbitrability, arguing the parties had agreed to delegate such questions to an arbitrator. The district court ruled in favor of Dorsa. It found that the arbitration clause failed to cover the FCA retaliation claim because the claim has “nothing to do with” the employment agreement itself: “[T]he arbitration clause in the present case, which covers only disputes arising from or connected with the Employment Agreement, plainly does not cover plaintiff’s FCA retaliation claim.” United States ex rel. Dorsa v. Miraca Life Scis., Inc., No. 3:13-CV-01025, 2019 WL 13130022, at  (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 11, 2019). Notably, the district court did not No. 21-5228 U.S. ex rel. Dorsa v. Miraca Life Sciences, Inc. Page 5 address Miraca’s reply argument about the court’s authority to decide threshold questions of arbitrability. Miraca appealed the district court’s decision on December 26, 2019. The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), however, confers appellate jurisdiction only when a district court denies a request to stay the proceedings or to compel arbitration. 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(A)–(B). We found that “[t]he essence of Miraca’s motion to the district court was a request that the court dismiss the action, not that the court stay the proceedings or issue an order compelling arbitration,” so we dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. United States ex rel. Dorsa v. Miraca Life Scis., Inc., 983 F.3d 885, 889 (6th Cir. 2020). B. Miraca’s Petition to Stay the Proceedings and Compel Arbitration On remand, Miraca filed another motion, this time petitioning the district court to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration. Miraca argued that any threshold question regarding the arbitrability of Dorsa’s retaliation claim must be resolved by an arbitrator, and not by the district court. The district court denied Miraca’s petition. The court echoed its previous determination that the arbitration clause fails to encompass the retaliation claim, again noting that the claim “does not aris[e] out of or in connection with” the employment agreement as the arbitration clause requires. United States ex rel. Dorsa v. Miraca Life Scis., Inc., No. 3:13-CV-01025, 2021 WL 679275, at  (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 22, 2021). The district court also found that its holding was further supported by a carve-out sentence within the arbitration clause, which allows Dorsa to pursue equitable relief (like front and back pay related to his retaliation claim) in court rather than through arbitration. Id. (internal quotations omitted). Additionally, the district court held that Miraca had waived its argument about its lacking authority to rule on threshold questions: [Miraca] waived this argument by not presenting it in its motion to dismiss. In that motion, [Miraca] sought dismissal of the complaint and argued that the Court should determine the arbitrability of [Dorsa’s] claim. It is now too late for [Miraca] to change its tack and argue instead that an arbitrator must make this determination and that the Court, in fact, lacks authority to do so. No. 21-5228 U.S. ex rel. Dorsa v. Miraca Life Sciences, Inc. Page 6 Id. (citations omitted). The district court rejected the delegation argument on the merits too. Id. at –4. Miraca timely appealed this ruling, and we have appellate jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 16.