NICHOLSON v. NPC INTERNATIONAL, INC., 8:17-cv-529-T-26TGW. (2017)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20170310b53
Visitors: 3
Filed: Mar. 09, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 09, 2017
Summary: ORDER RICHARD A. LAZZARA , District Judge . UPON DUE AND CAREFUL CONSIDERATION of the Defendant's submissions, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 4) is denied. Even if this Court ultimately concludes that Plaintiff's claim is subject to mandatory and binding arbitration, it would commit error by dismissing the complaint. See Bender v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. , 971 F.2d 698 , 699 (11th Cir. 1992). The proper procedure would be to stay the
Summary: ORDER RICHARD A. LAZZARA , District Judge . UPON DUE AND CAREFUL CONSIDERATION of the Defendant's submissions, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 4) is denied. Even if this Court ultimately concludes that Plaintiff's claim is subject to mandatory and binding arbitration, it would commit error by dismissing the complaint. See Bender v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. , 971 F.2d 698 , 699 (11th Cir. 1992). The proper procedure would be to stay the ..
More
ORDER
RICHARD A. LAZZARA, District Judge.
UPON DUE AND CAREFUL CONSIDERATION of the Defendant's submissions, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 4) is denied. Even if this Court ultimately concludes that Plaintiff's claim is subject to mandatory and binding arbitration, it would commit error by dismissing the complaint. See Bender v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 971 F.2d 698, 699 (11th Cir. 1992). The proper procedure would be to stay the case pending arbitration rather than dismissing it. Id.1
2) Defendant's Motions to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings (Dkt. 4) are denied for failure to comply with the conferral requirements of Local Rule 3.01(g).
3) Counsel for the parties shall confer personally within seven (7) days of the entry of this order in a good faith effort to resolve the merits of the motion without Court intervention.
DONE AND ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. To the extent that Bender conflicts with Caley v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 428 F.3d 1359 (11th Cir. 2005) and Lambert v. Austin Ind., 544 F.3d 1192 (11th Cir. 2008), Bender controls because it is the earlier decided case. See United States v. Ohayon, 483 F.3d 1281, 1289 (11th Cir. 2007); Robinson v. Tanner, 798 F.2d 1378, 1383 (11th Cir. 1986).
Source: Leagle
