ORDER

DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge.

The parties have stipulated to stay these proceedings because they have submitted to a binding pre-dispute arbitration. Doc. 7. The Court finds that a stay is unnecessary, and will instead dismiss the case.

A district court has discretion to stay or dismiss an action when it finds that the parties' arbitration agreement is "valid and enforceable." Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1276 (9th Cir. 2006). Some district courts have found that the Ninth Circuit favors stays over dismissals. See Tierra Right of Way Servs., Ltd. V. Abengoa Solar Inc., No. CV-11-00323-PHX-GMS, 2011 WL 2292007, at *7 (D. Ariz. June 9, 2011) (citing Bushley v. Credit Suisse First Boston, 360 F.3d 1149, 1153 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004)). However, a district court does not err by dismissing a case even where neither party requests dismissal. Sparling v. Hoffman Const. Co., Inc., 864 F.2d 635, 637-38 (9th Cir. 1988); see Cayenne Med., Inc. v. MedShape, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-0451-HRH, 2015 WL 5363717, at *4 (D. Ariz. Sept. 15, 2015) (holding that "[g]enerally, a stay is appropriate but it is within the court's discretion to dismiss a case" when all claims are subject to arbitration) (citing Delgadillo v. James McKaone Enters., Inc., No. 1:12-cv-1149 AWI MJS, 2012 WL 4027019, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2012)). The parties in this case have submitted all claims to arbitration. Therefore, the Court will exercise its discretion to dismiss the case without prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED that this case is dismissed without prejudice and the Clerk is directed to terminate this action.