Rodriguez v. Milan Institute, et al., No. 1:2015cv01669 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER re Defendants' 4 Motion to Compel Arbitration, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/20/16. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 KASSIA RODRIGUEZ, 6 Plaintiff, 7 8 v. 1:15-cv-1669-LJO-SAB MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION (Doc. 4) MILAN INSTITUTE, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 12 Before the Court is Defendants’1 motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff Kassia Rodriguez’s 13 employment claims under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. Doc. 4. Defendants 14 argue that Plaintiff must submit her claims to arbitration pursuant to her employment contract and, 15 accordingly, the Court should dismiss this case. See id. at 1. 16 Plaintiff does not dispute that she must submit her claims to arbitration. See Doc. 12 at 2. Citing 17 9 U.S.C. § 3 (“§ 3”), Plaintiff argues, however, that this case should be stayed pending the outcome of 18 the arbitration, not dismissed. Id. 19 Accordingly, the only issue before the Court is whether to stay or dismiss this case. The Court 20 took the matter under submission on the papers. See Doc. 14. For the following reasons, the Court 21 GRANTS Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE this case. 22 II. DISCUSSION 23 Section 3 of the FAA “provides for a stay pending compliance with a contractual arbitration 24 25 1 Defendants are Milan Institute, Milan Institute of Cosmetology, Gary Yasuda, Shahrooz Roohparvar, and Erika Lopez. 1 1 clause.” Martin Marietta Aluminum, Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 568 F.2d 143, 147 (9th Cir. 1978). Because 2 “a request for a stay [under § 3] is not mandatory,” courts have discretion to stay claims when they are 3 subject to arbitration. Id. But when claims are subject to arbitration, they are subject to dismissal under 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Thinket Ink Info. Res., Inc. v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 368 F.3d 1053, 1060 (9th 5 Cir. 2004); see Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., Inc., 864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988) (“This court 6 held [in Martin Marietta] that 9 U.S.C. section 3 gives a court authority . . . to grant a stay pending 7 arbitration, but . . . the provision did not limit the court’s authority to grant a dismissal in this case 8 [under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)].”). 9 There is no dispute that Plaintiff’s claims are subject to arbitration. See Doc. 12 at 3. The Court 10 declines to exercise its discretion to stay this case. Instead, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE 11 this case. See Lewis v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc., 818 F. Supp. 2d 1161, 1169 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (finding 12 dismissal with prejudice appropriate when claims are subject to arbitration); Morgan v. Xerox Corp., No. 13 2:13-cv-408-TLN-AC, 2013 WL 2151656, at *7 (E.D. Cal. May 16, 2013) (same). III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 14 15 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of 16 Plaintiff’s claims (Doc. 4), and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE this case. The Clerk of Court is 17 directed to CLOSE this case. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill January 20, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.