O'Brien v. Conduent Commercial Solutions, LLC ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ERIC O’BRIEN, an individual, No. 1:21-cv-00512-NONE-JLT 11 Plaintiff, 12 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S v. UNOPPOSED MOTION TO COMPEL 13 ARBITRATION AND DISMISSING 14 CONDUENT COMMERCIAL SOLUTIONS, CASE LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company; 15 and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Before the court for decision is defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, in which 19 defendant requests that plaintiff be ordered to arbitrate all of the claims in this case and that this 20 matter be dismissed. (Doc. No. 3.) Plaintiff has filed a statement of non-opposition in which he 21 agrees to arbitrate all of the claims but requests that the matter be stayed (rather than dismissed) 22 pending arbitration so that the court may “retain jurisdiction over the case until it reaches a final 23 resolution to confirm, correct, or vacate the award.” (Doc. No. 4.) Defendant did not respond to 24 plaintiff’s filing. Therefore, the court assumes defendant does not object to the requested stay. 25 Nonetheless, the court declines to stay this matter. It appears to be undisputed that a valid 26 arbitration agreement exists and applies to all of the claims in this case. In such circumstances 27 the court “must dismiss the action or compel the action to arbitration and stay the proceedings.” 28 Ortiz v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 52 F. Supp. 3d 1070, 1089 (E.D. Cal. 2014); see also Sparling 1 | v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988) (where all claims were subject to an 2 | arbitration clause found to be valid “the plaintiffs could not possibly win relief and the dismissal 3 || was appropriate”). The court “has the discretion to either stay the case pending arbitration or to 4 | dismiss the case if all of the alleged claims are subject to arbitration.” Ortiz, 52 F. Supp. 3d at 5 | 1089 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Farrow vy. Fujitsu America, Inc., 37 6 | F. Supp. 3d 1115, 1126 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (‘When arbitration is mandatory, courts have discretion 7 || to stay the case under 9 U.S.C. § 3 or dismiss the litigation entirely.”). Here, the court concludes 8 | that dismissal of this action is appropriate because all of the claims are subject to the arbitration 9 | clause and plaintiff has offered no specific reason (other than a generic desire to have the 10 | undersigned handle subsequent proceedings) for the court to stay the matter instead of dismissing 1] |} it. 12 Accordingly, 13 (1) Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss this action (Doc. No. 3) is 14 | GRANTED; and 15 (2) The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this matter for the purposes 16 | of closure and then to CLOSE THIS CASE. 17 | IT IS SOORDERED. sa | Dated: _May 5, 2021 Vila A Drag 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28