Kring v. Kelly Services Global, LLC ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION SCOTT KRING, Plaintiff, Case No. 23-cv-10858 v. Hon. Matthew F. Leitman KELLY SERVICES GLOBAL, LLC, Defendant. __________________________________________________________________/ ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION AND DISMISS THE COMPLAINT (ECF No. 12); (2) VACATING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND DISMISS COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED (ECF No. 13); AND (3) STAYING ACTION In this putative collective civil action, Plaintiff Scott Kring seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages that he is allegedly owed from his former employer, Defendant Kelly Services Global, LLC (“Kelly Services”), as well as other damages under the Federal Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (“PMWA”), and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law (“WPCL”). On May 18, 2023, Kelly Services filed a Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration and Dismiss the Complaint. (See Mot., ECF No. 12.) In that motion, Kelly Services argued that the Court should dismiss Kring’s complaint because the parties entered into a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement. (See id., PageID.50.) In a Response to the motion, Kring agreed that his claims were subject to arbitration, but urged the Court to stay the action, rather than dismiss it, until arbitration is completed. (See Resp., ECF No. 14, PageID.142-143.) Kelly Services’ motion (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED to the extent that it asks the Court to compel arbitration, and DENIED to the extent that it asks the Court to dismiss the case. After carefully reviewing the parties’ briefings, the Court concludes that it is appropriate to compel arbitration and to STAY this action pending the completion of the process laid out in the parties’ arbitration agreement. See Arabian Motors Grp. W.L.L. v. Ford Motor Co., 19 F.4th 938, 941-42 (6th Cir. 2021). The Court’s previous Order to Show Cause Why Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss Complaint Should Not Be Granted (ECF No. 13) is VACATED. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: July 12, 2023 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on July 12, 2023, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. s/Holly A. Ryan Case Manager (313) 234-5126