1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * *

6 BONNIE QUAINTANCE, Case No. 3:20-cv-00084-MMD-WGC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 HERB HALLMAN CHEVROLET, INC., dba 9 CHAMPION CHEVROLET,

10 Defendant.

11 12 Plaintiff Gary Quaintance1 filed a complaint alleging unlawful retaliation under Title 13 VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and claims for wrongful termination, breach of contract, 14 and negligence in hiring under Nevada state law. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant Herb Hallman 15 Chevrolet, Inc., counters that Plaintiff’s claims are subject to a blanket arbitration 16 agreement he signed upon his hiring. (ECF No. 14 at 2.) Before the Court is Defendant’s 17 Motion to Compel Arbitration (“Motion to Compel”). (ECF No. 14.) In the alternative, 18 Defendant requests that the Court dismiss three of Plaintiff’s four claims as time-barred. 19 (ECF Id. at 8-13.) Because Plaintiff does not oppose arbitration,2 the Court will grant the 20 Motion to Compel and stay this case. 21 /// 22

23 1Bonnie Quaintance, as the Special Administrator of the Estate of Gary Quaintance, was substituted as the named plaintiff on September 11, 2020. (ECF No. 24 23.)

25 2The Court recognizes that Plaintiff may dispute whether Quaintance in fact signed the arbitration agreement. (ECF No. 19 at 1, 2.) However, in light of Plaintiff’s 26 agreement to arbitrate (ECF No. 19 at 3) and Defendant’s submission of Plaintiff’s preserved testimony in which Plaintiff said the signature appeared to be his own (ECF 27 No. 14-2 at 7), the Court does not consider this argument to oppose arbitration. See Navarette v. Poly-West, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-01805-GMN-NJK, at * (D. Nev. May 27, 28 2020) (granting a motion to compel arbitration when a Plaintiff did not explicitly disclaim 1 While it is fundamental that “a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any 2 || dispute which [it] has not agreed to submit,” Samson v. NAMA Holdings, LLC,

|| 915, 923 (9th Cir. 2011), Plaintiff does not oppose arbitration provided that the Court stay 4 || the present case rather than dismissing his federal and state law claims. (ECF No. 19 at 5 || 3.) Therefore, the Court should only deny arbitration where “it may be said with positive 6 || assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the 7 || asserted dispute.” AT&T Tech., Inc. v. Comm’n Workers,

(1986). The 8 || arbitration agreement purports to cover “all disputes that may arise out of the employment 9 || context,” expressly providing that “this voluntary alternative dispute resolution program 10 || cover[s] claims of discrimination or harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 11 || 1964.” (ECF No. 14-1 at 2.) Because Plaintiffs federal and state law claims all “arise out 12 || of the employment context,” the Court finds that the claims alleged in Plaintiff's complaint 13 || are covered by the arbitration clause. See AT&T Tech. Workers,

. 14 In sum, the claims are subject to the agreement and Plaintiff does not oppose 15 || submitting them to an arbitrator. The Court therefore finds no reason to deny the Motion 16 || to Compel. 17 It is therefore ordered that Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration (ECF No. 14) 18 || is granted. 19 It is further ordered that this case is stay pending arbitration. 20 It is further ordered that within 30 days of the conclusion of the arbitration 21 || proceedings, the parties will apprise the Court on the status of the case. 22 The Clerk of Court is directed to administratively close this case. 23 DATED THIS 30" Day of November 2020. LLnr_ 25 / MIRANDA M. DU 26 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28