(PC) Hardney v. Warren

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 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 R. WARREN, et al., ECF No. 136 15 Defendants.

17 On May 28, 2021, the parties participated in a court supervised settlement conference, but they were unable to reach a settlement agreement. ECF No. 132. Defendants subsequently filed a timely motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 135. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion 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 reach a settlement agreement. Significantly, plaintiff does not claim, much less establish, that the parties have entered into an enforceable arbitration agreement. See Lifescan Inc. v. Premier Diabetic Servs., Inc., 363 F.3d 1010, 1011-12 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that contract principles govern arbitration and that “the district court’s role is limited to determining whether a valid arbitration agreement exists . . . .”). Consequently, there is no basis for ordering defendants to arbitrate plaintiff’s claims.

1 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiffs motion for an order requiring defendants to participate in arbitration, ECF | No. 136, is denied.

4 2. Plaintiff is reminded that he must file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to | defendants’ motion for summary judgment by no later than July 30, 2021.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ July 21, 2021 9 JEREMY D. PETERSON 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE