Filed: Jun. 01, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 01, 2012
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CARLOS MURGUIA, District Judge. This matter is before the court on Defendants Ozark Waffles, LLC, WH Capital, LLC and Waffle House, Inc's Motion to Stay Proceedings and Compel Arbitration (Doc. 48). The court has reviewed the briefs at length, as well as the arbitration agreements. Plaintiffs make two general arguments why the court should not send their claims to arbitration: (1) the agreements are ambiguous and (2) they are unenforceable. Neither party, however, referen
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CARLOS MURGUIA, District Judge. This matter is before the court on Defendants Ozark Waffles, LLC, WH Capital, LLC and Waffle House, Inc's Motion to Stay Proceedings and Compel Arbitration (Doc. 48). The court has reviewed the briefs at length, as well as the arbitration agreements. Plaintiffs make two general arguments why the court should not send their claims to arbitration: (1) the agreements are ambiguous and (2) they are unenforceable. Neither party, however, referenc..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CARLOS MURGUIA, District Judge.
This matter is before the court on Defendants Ozark Waffles, LLC, WH Capital, LLC and Waffle House, Inc's Motion to Stay Proceedings and Compel Arbitration (Doc. 48). The court has reviewed the briefs at length, as well as the arbitration agreements. Plaintiffs make two general arguments why the court should not send their claims to arbitration: (1) the agreements are ambiguous and (2) they are unenforceable. Neither party, however, references the following provision in the arbitration agreements:
The Arbitrator, and not any federal, state, or local court or agency, shall have exclusive1 authority to resolve any dispute relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability or formation of this Agreement, including but not limited to any claim that all or any part of this Agreement is void or voidable.
This provision nearly mirrors the delegation provision in Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 130 S.Ct. 2772, 2777 (2010). In Rent-A-Center, the Supreme Court considered a clause that stated, "The Arbitrator . . . shall have exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the . . . enforceability . . . of this Agreement including, but not limited to any claim that all or any part of this Agreement is void or voidable." 130 S. Ct. at 2777. Like the plaintiffs in the instant case, the Rent-A-Center plaintiff did not specifically challenge the validity of the delegation provision itself. The Supreme Court held that because the plaintiff did not challenge the delegation provision specifically, the Court must treat it as valid and let the arbitrator decide any challenge to the validity of the agreement as a whole. Id. at 2779.
The court believes that Rent-A-Center is controlling and that the court should stay these claims pending arbitration—at a minimum, arbitration over whether the agreements apply to plaintiffs' claims and are enforceable. Nevertheless, because the parties have not addressed the issue, the court believes that it would be fair to give them the opportunity to do so.
The court therefore orders the parties to submit limited briefing on the issue of who should decide whether the arbitration agreements are ambiguous and enforceable. Specifically, the parties are ordered to each file a supplemental brief addressing the delegation clause in the agreements—not to exceed three pages and not to incorporate by reference any other briefs in this case—on or before June 8, 2012. No responses or replies are allowed.
IT IS THERFORE ORDERED that the parties must each file a supplemental brief addressing the delegation clause in the agreements—not to exceed three pages and not to incorporate by reference any other briefs in this case—on or before June 8, 2012. No responses or replies are allowed.
