Court Opinion

ID: 9813324
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 23:00:26.948093+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:28:22.733643
License: Public Domain

WIDENER, Circuit Judge,
Dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
I would affirm the judgment of the district court on its opinion, the reasons for which are summarized in the last full paragraph of its opinion, as follows:
In this case, the court finds that Patten has sufficiently demonstrated that Skanska has waived its right to compel arbitration. This case was filed over eight months ago, and the parties have substantially utilized the court in this case. As stated above, the parties have engaged in discovery, participated in mediation, and had a motion decided before the court. Regardless whether these factors alone would be sufficient for the court to find Skanksa [sic] waived its right to compel arbitration, the court finds that because Patten has thus far expended Five Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty-Two Dollars and Fifty-Two Cents ($5,862.52) to prosecute its case, compelling arbitration would result in actual prejudice to Patten. This prejudice is highlighted by the fact that Patten represents to the court it would be required to pay a substantial initial fee to engage the American Arbitration Association. Although the court is aware of the federal policy favoring arbitration, in this case the court finds that denial of Skanska’s motion to compel arbitration is appropriate based on the facts discussed above, (footnote omitted)