Court Opinion

ID: 9894879
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-03 16:00:52.706967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:58.780108
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-2531
                         ___________________________

                               William A. Hughes, II

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

                Team Car Care, LLC, doing business as Jiffy Lube

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                   for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
                                   ____________

                            Submitted: October 31, 2023
                             Filed: November 3, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

     Team Car Care, LLC, appeals the district court’s1 denial of its motion to
compel arbitration of Title VII claims of race discrimination and unlawful retaliation

      1
       The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
asserted by its former employee, William Hughes II. After careful de novo review,
we conclude that the court did not err, as it correctly concluded after an evidentiary
hearing that Team Car Care failed to meet its burden to prove the existence of a valid
and enforceable arbitration agreement under Missouri law. See Shockley v.
PrimeLending, 929 F.3d 1012, 1020 (8th Cir. 2019); M.A. Mortenson Co. v.
Saunders Concrete Co., 676 F.3d 1153, 1157 (8th Cir. 2012); AgGrow Oils, L.L.C.
v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 242 F.3d 777, 780 (8th Cir. 2001).
Team Car Care’s argument that the threshold issue of arbitrability should have been
decided by an arbitrator rather than the district court is without merit. See United
States for Use of Lighting & Power Servs.,Inc. v. Interface Construc. Corp., 553 F.3d
1150, 1154 (8th Cir. 2009). Because the parties disputed whether there was an
arbitration agreement, the issue was properly decided by the district court. See Neb.
Mach. Co. v. Cargotec Solutions, LLC, 762 F.3d 737, 741 n.2 (8th Cir. 2014).
Accordingly, the Order of the district court dated June 13, 2023, is affirmed.
                        ______________________________

                                         -2-