ORDER

ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on the following:

Over the objections of Defendants Michael J. Twillman, Dolores M. Twillman, and Donald J. Twillman ("Defendants"), on October 6, 2016, this Court entered an Order granting in part the motion for preliminary injunction filed by Plaintiff Pirtek USA, LLC ("Pirtek"). (Doc. 56 ("PI Order").) In accordance with the analysis set forth in the PI Order—which rejected Defendants' arguments that a February 2016 franchise agreement between Pirtek and Defendant Michael Twillman ("Franchise Agreement") was effectively rescinded—the Court now finds that the Defendants' Motion to Transfer (Doc. 29) and Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 52) are due to be denied.1 (Doc. 56, pp. 8-14.)

As noted in the PI Order and discussed at the Hearing, Defendants agreed "to be personally bound by each and every condition and term contained in the Franchise Agreement . . . including without limitation the dispute resolution" provision. (See Doc. 56, p. 4.) As such, "the ultimate merits" of the parties' dispute may be decided "in arbitration pursuant to the Franchise Agreement's arbitration clause." (See id. at 14, n.9; see also Doc. 40-1, pp. 26-27.) Indeed, in their Amended Case Management Report ("CMR"), which the parties jointly filed on September 16, 2016, the parties noted that "there may be an issue whether Plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction is subject to arbitration." (Doc. 54, p. 1.) Accordingly, to preserve judicial resources and the parties' respective interests (if any) in arbitration of their disputes, the Court will require that the parties promptly file an Amended CMR. The Amended CMR must provide an additional and distinct section concerning the timing of any arbitration proceedings and the anticipated impact of such arbitration proceedings on this action. See generally 9 U.S.C. § 3 (2015).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

DONE AND ORDERED.