(PC) Hardney v. Warren ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN HARDNEY, Case No. 2:16-cv-00172-KJM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING 13 v. DEFENDANTS TO PARTICIPATE IN ARBITRATION 14 R. WARREN, et al., ECF No. 136 15 Defendants. 16 17 On May 28, 2021, the parties participated in a court supervised settlement conference, but 18 they were unable to reach a settlement agreement. ECF No. 132. Defendants subsequently filed 19 a timely motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 135. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion 20 that requests that defendants be ordered to participate in arbitration. ECF No. 136. 21 Plaintiff’s motion does little more than express his frustration over the parties’ inability to 22 reach a settlement agreement. Significantly, plaintiff does not claim, much less establish, that the 23 parties have entered into an enforceable arbitration agreement. See Lifescan Inc. v. Premier 24 Diabetic Servs., Inc., 363 F.3d 1010, 1011-12 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that contract principles 25 govern arbitration and that “the district court’s role is limited to determining whether a valid 26 arbitration agreement exists . . . .”). Consequently, there is no basis for ordering defendants to 27 arbitrate plaintiff’s claims. 28 1 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiffs motion for an order requiring defendants to participate in arbitration, ECF 3 | No. 136, is denied. 4 2. Plaintiff is reminded that he must file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to 5 | defendants’ motion for summary judgment by no later than July 30, 2021. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ July 21, 2021 9 JEREMY D. PETERSON 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28