-FKB Stringer Construction Company, LLC v. Driver Pipeline Company, Inc. et al, No. 4:2010cv00147 - Document 14 (S.D. Miss. 2010)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order granting 4 MOTION to Compel Arbitration as set out herein. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 10/5/10 (LWE)

Download PDF
-FKB Stringer Construction Company, LLC v. Driver Pipeline Company, Inc. et al Doc. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI EASTERN DIVISION DRIVER PIPELINE COMPANY, INC. VS. PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10CV437TSL-FKB STRINGER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC DEFENDANT CONSOLIDATED WITH STRINGER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC. VS. PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:10CV147HTW-LRA DRIVER PIPELINE COMPANY, INC., LEAF RIVER ENERGY CENTER, LLC, XYZ INDIVIDUALS, and ABC ENTITIES DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In Civil Action No. 3:10CV437TSL-FKB, defendant Stringer Construction Company, LLC (Stringer), citing St. Paul Insurance Co. v. Trejo, 39 F.3d 585 (5th Cir. 1994), moved to dismiss the complaint for declaratory judgment brought against it by Driver Pipeline Company, Inc. (Driver) in favor of a separate action brought by Stringer against Driver in state court. Since the filing of Stringer’s motion, Stringer’s state court suit has been removed to this court and consolidated with the case brought by Driver in this court. Stringer’s motion to dismiss has thus become moot and will therefore be denied. In both the suit brought by Driver and by Stringer, Driver has moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement contained in the work order/contract between Driver and Dockets.Justia.com Stringer which states, “[a]ll claims and disputes arising out of or relating to the project, the work, or this work order must be settled by arbitration under the Construction Industry Arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association.” In considering whether to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, a court must engage in a two-step analysis. Tittle v. Enron Corp., 463 F.3d 410, 418 (5th Cir. 2006). “First, a court must ‘determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute in question.’” Id. (quoting Webb v. Investacorp, Inc., 89 F.3d 252, 258 (5th Cir. 1996)). This inquiry asks whether there is a valid arbitration agreement and whether the dispute at issue falls within the scope of that agreement. Id. “Second, a court must determine ‘whether legal constraints external to the parties' agreement foreclose[ ] the arbitration of those claims.’” Id. (quoting Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, 473 U.S. 614, 105 S. Ct. 3346, 3355, 87 L. Ed. 2d 444 (1985)). In the case at bar, Stringer has not challenged the validity of the arbitration agreement or Driver’s assertion that the parties’ present dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement (and it clearly does). Nor has Stringer offered any basis for denying enforcement of the agreement. Accordingly, the motion to compel arbitration will be granted. Based on the foregoing, it is ordered that Stringer’s motion to dismiss in Civil Action No. 3:10CV437TSL-FKB is denied. 2 It is further ordered that the motions to compel arbitration in both of the above-styled cases are granted, and it is ordered that this cause will be stayed pending arbitration. The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to administratively close this action pending notification by the parties that arbitration proceedings have been completed. SO ORDERED this 5th day of October, 2010. /s/Tom S. Lee UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

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.