ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS

JEFFREY T. MILLER, District Judge.

This order addresses Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay all proceedings, filed on January 12, 2016. (Doc. No. 15). Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition on February 22, 2016. (Doc. No. 18). The motion was found suitable for resolution without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1.d.1. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion is granted.

BACKGROUND

On September 17, 2015, Plaintiff Mark G. Gefrom initiated this action against Defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Company, alleging a violation of the Family & Medical Leave Act, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

On November 13, 2015, Defendant filed a motion to strike. (Doc. No. 7). On January 12, 2016, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel arbitration and stay all proceedings. (Doc. No. 15). On January 22, 2015, the court continued the hearing date for Defendant's motion to strike to a future date to be set after the resolution of the instant motion to compel arbitration. (Doc. No. 14).

DISCUSSION

The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") was enacted by Congress for the purpose of "revers[ing] the longstanding judicial hostility to arbitration agreements . . . and to place arbitration agreements upon the same footing as other contracts." Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 24 (1991). To that end, arbitration provisions falling within the FAA's purview are generally deemed "valid, irrevocable, and enforceable." 9 U.S.C. § 2. The Act embodies a "liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements," AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 339 (2011), and is to be "rigorously enforce[d]," Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 221 (1985). Accordingly, "[u]nder the FAA, the role of the district court is to determine if a valid arbitration agreement exists, and if so, whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue." Davis v. Nordstrom, Inc., 755 F.3d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Kilgore v. KeyBank, N.A., 718 F.3d 1052, 1057 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc)).

In its motion, Defendant states that there exists a valid arbitration agreement — the AT&T's Management Arbitration Agreement (the "MAA") — entered into by both Plaintiff and Defendant. Specifically, Defendant contends that (1) the MAA is an enforceable contract; (2) the MAA is not unconscionable; and (3) Plaintiff's claims are within the scope of the MAA.

Based on Defendant's arguments, and in light of Plaintiff's non-opposition, the court grants Defendant's motion to compel arbitration, and stays this case pending arbitration of the matters at issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.