Filed: Oct. 05, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 05, 2018
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . Defendants Doctor's Associates Inc. ("DAI") and Subway Real Estate, LLC ("SRE") (collectively, "Defendants") request a stay of this case ("Motion") pending a ruling on its efforts to compel arbitration. (ECF No. 4.) Pro se Plaintiff Vishal Sharma ("Sharma") originally filed this case on April 18, 2018, in the Justice Court of Sparks Township in and for Washoe County, State of Nevada. (ECF No. 1 at 1; ECF No. 1-1.) Defendants filed a notice of accepta
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . Defendants Doctor's Associates Inc. ("DAI") and Subway Real Estate, LLC ("SRE") (collectively, "Defendants") request a stay of this case ("Motion") pending a ruling on its efforts to compel arbitration. (ECF No. 4.) Pro se Plaintiff Vishal Sharma ("Sharma") originally filed this case on April 18, 2018, in the Justice Court of Sparks Township in and for Washoe County, State of Nevada. (ECF No. 1 at 1; ECF No. 1-1.) Defendants filed a notice of acceptan..
More
ORDER
MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.
Defendants Doctor's Associates Inc. ("DAI") and Subway Real Estate, LLC ("SRE") (collectively, "Defendants") request a stay of this case ("Motion") pending a ruling on its efforts to compel arbitration. (ECF No. 4.)
Pro se Plaintiff Vishal Sharma ("Sharma") originally filed this case on April 18, 2018, in the Justice Court of Sparks Township in and for Washoe County, State of Nevada. (ECF No. 1 at 1; ECF No. 1-1.) Defendants filed a notice of acceptance of service on May 8, 2018 (ECF No. 1-2 at 2) and a notice of removal on May 22, 2018 (ECF No. 1). About a week before, on May 17, 2018, DAI filed a petition to compel arbitration ("Petition") in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut ("District of Connecticut"). (ECF No. 4-1.)
In their Motion, Defendants contend that Sharma's filing contravened his arbitration obligation pursuant to an arbitration clause in the franchise agreement between Sharma and DAI providing for arbitration in Connecticut.1 (ECF No. 4 at 1-2 (citing 9 U.S.C. § 4); see also ECF No. 4-1 at 3 (the Petition documenting the franchise agreement ("FA")).) Therefore, Defendants seek to stay Sharma's lawsuit until the District of Connecticut has ruled on the Petition. (Id. at 2.)
Sharma had until June 12, 2018, to file a response to the Motion. (ECF No. 5.) Albeit Sharma filed an "Answer" on June 11, 2018 (ECF No. 8), it is not responsive to the Motion.2 Defendants subsequently submitted a reply in furtherance of their Motion. (ECF No. 9.)
Thereafter, in late July 2018 Sharma filed a "Reply in further support of plaintiff claims of unjust enrichment. . . ." ("Reply").3 (ECF No. 12.) In his Reply, Sharma appears to argue that there is no agreement to arbitrate because the FA has been terminated. (Id. at 3.) The Court will not consider this argument because Defendants have not been provided an opportunity to reply4 and the District of Connecticut would necessarily consider the applicability of the FA and the arbitration clause therein to render decision on the Petition. Sharma does not indicate that a decision on the Petition has been rendered. (See generally ECF No. 12.) Thus, in its discretion, the Court finds it most appropriate to stay this case pending a decision by the District of Connecticut on the Petition.
It is therefore ordered that Defendants' Motion to Stay Case (ECF No. 4) is granted. All proceedings and filings are temporarily stayed pending a decision on the Petition. The parties must file a status report with this Court within 15 days from such a decision.
It is further ordered that the Clerk administratively close this case.
