United States District Court for the District of Arizona, 2019

Parks v. Westlake Financial

Parks v. Westlake Financial
United States District Court for the District of Arizona · Decided August 19, 2019
Parks v. Westlake Financial

Trial Court Opinion

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 DAisha Parks, No. CV-19-02481-PHX-DWL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Westlake Financial, 13 Defendant.

15 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation (Doc. 10), which states that the parties agree that Plaintiff’s claims must “be resolved by way of arbitration” and thus asks the Court to issue an order staying “[t]he Federal proceeding . . . pending the outcome of the arbitration.” (Id.) 19 The Court is disinclined to accept this stipulation. When faced with a valid and enforceable arbitration provision, a district court has discretion to either (1) dismiss the case without prejudice or (2) stay the case pending the completion of the arbitration. See, e.g., Kam-Ko Bio-Pharm Trading Co. Ltd-Australasia v. Mayne Pharma, 560 F.3d 935, 940 (9th Cir. 2009); Sparling v. Hoffman Const. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988). It is this Court’s usual practice to exercise its discretion to choose the former option— dismissal without prejudice—in this circumstance. Cf. Altela Inc. v. Ariz. Science & Tech.

26 Enterprises, Inc., 2016 WL 4539949, *8 (D. Ariz. 2016) (“[A]ll of Altela’s claims are subject to mandatory arbitration. The Court will dismiss this case rather than staying it.”).

28 … 1 Accordingly, the parties are ordered to show cause why this case should not be 2|| dismissed without prejudice in light of their agreement to arbitrate. To do so, the parties || may jointly file a brief, not to exceed five (5) pages, by August 26, 2019 that explains why 4|| astay (rather than dismissal without prejudice) is necessary and appropriate here.

5 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 6 (1) The parties’ stipulation (Doc. 10) is accepted in part and rejected in part; 7 (2) The parties may jointly file a brief, not to exceed five (5) pages, by August || 26, 2019 that explains why a stay (rather than dismissal without prejudice) is necessary and || appropriate here; and 10 (3) If the parties do not file such a brief, the Clerk of Court shall dismiss this || case without prejudice on August 27, 2019 and enter judgment accordingly.

12 Dated this 19th day of August, 2019.

14 Po 16 United States District Judge _2-

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.