In re Swift Transportation, No. 15-70592 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseIn this companion case to Van Dusen v. Swift, No. 15-15257 (“Van Dusen III”), Swift seeks a writ of mandamus ordering the district court to vacate its case management order and decide the petition to compel arbitration without discovery or trial. The court concluded that the Bauman factors weigh against the grant of mandamus relief; Swift has a remedy in urging its position before the district court in dispositive motions and, if the district court is adverse to Swift, in the form of direct appeal following the issuance of a final order; normal litigation expense does not constitute sufficient prejudice to warrant relief, and the discovery cost has already been incurred; and most crucially, in the absence of controlling precedent, the district court order was not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the court concluded that Swift is not entitled to the extraordinary relief of the issuance of a writ of mandamus.
Court Description: Arbitration / Mandamus. The panel denied a petition for a writ of mandamus in a labor law case in which the defendants sought to compel arbitration. In a prior appeal, the court of appeals held that the district court, rather than an arbitrator, must decide whether the dispute was exempt from arbitration under 9 U.S.C. § 1, which provides that the Federal Arbitration Act does not apply to contracts of workers engaged in foreign or interstate IN RE SWIFT TRANSPORTATION 3 commerce. On remand, the district court issued a scheduling order for discovery and a trial on the § 1 issue. In a companion appeal, Van Dusen v. Swift, No. 15-15257, the panel held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s interlocutory scheduling order. Defendants also sought a writ of mandamus ordering the district court to vacate its order and decide defendants’ petition to compel arbitration without discovery or trial. The panel denied the mandamus petition because defendants had a remedy in urging their position before the district court in dispositive motions and in the form of direct appeal following the issuance of a final order. Normal litigation expense did not constitute sufficient prejudice to warrant relief, and the discovery cost had already been incurred. And, most crucially, the district court’s order was not clearly erroneous. Concurring, Judge Hurwitz wrote that the extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus was not warranted. Dissenting, Judge Ikuta wrote that a writ of mandamus should be granted because the district court clearly erred in ordering discovery, pretrial proceedings, and trial rather than addressing the only legal issue before it¯whether the workers’ contract was a “contract of employment” for purposes of § 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act. She wrote that other factors also weighed in favor of granting the writ. 4 IN RE SWIFT TRANSPORTATION
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.