Opinion
Civil Action No. 2:00-0885-RV-L.
October 25, 2000.
ORDER
Three weeks ago (on October 2, 2000), petitioners America's Home Place, Barry Conner, and Jeanetta Holcey filed a petition requesting this court to order arbitration of any and all claims respondent Woodrow Mitchell has against them.
This federal action seeking compelled arbitration appears to have been precipitated by Mr. Mitchell's complaint filed in state court on August 21, 2000, asserting fraud, breach of contract, civil conspiracy, and various other claims against America's Home Place, Mr. Conner, and Ms. Holcey, as well as numerous other persons and entities. Mr. Mitchell included in his state complaint a request that the arbitration clause in the contract giving rise to the dispute be held to be unenforceable.
Notwithstanding that they could have asked the state court to compel arbitration, petitioners sought such relief from this court and then requested an order shortening Mr. Mitchell's time to respond no later than five days after service.
As a direct result of the undersigned's heavy criminal caseload, the court did not rule on the motion before the proposed shortened deadline had passed. Thus, it is ORDERED that the motion to shorten time is MOOT.
Mr. Mitchell responded to the petition by filing a motion to dismiss, stating, inter alia, that the state court had ordered arbitration. Notwithstanding that the state court has now compelled arbitration, defendants oppose Mr. Mitchell's motion to dismiss this federal petition for reasons that are not entirely clear. In their opposition, petitioners represent that the state court also granted Mr. Mitchell's motion to appoint an arbitrator which was premised on the fact that the entity named as the arbitrator in the underlying contract was also named by Mr. Mitchell as a defendant in his state court suit and was therefore unsuitable to serve as arbitrator. Petitioners also represent that the state court granted Mr. Mitchell's motion to amend the complaint by deleting his challenge to the arbitration provision. Petitioners have requested the state court to reconsider both of those rulings on the grounds that Mr. Mitchell has "waived any right the has to seek to compel arbitration."
Petitioners assert that Mr. Mitchell has "usurped this Court's authority by seeking to have an arbitrator appointed by the state court," because "[p]etitioners filed this petition in this Court so that this Court would determine the method for seeking an arbitrator." The court has reviewed the petition, and no where in it do petitioners ask the court to "determine the method for seeking an arbitrator." Additionally, petitioners have not suggested that the state court acted improperly in its selecting of an arbitrator.
Thus, it now appears that all key parties want to arbitrate Mr. Mitchell's claims arising from the underlying contract and that the state court has granted that relief. It is not apparent why it matters to petitioners whether arbitration is compelled by this court at petitioners' request or by the state court at Mr. Mitchell's request. In any event, petitioners have cited no authority for this court to compel arbitration when another court has already compelled arbitration between the parties. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is GRANTED on the grounds that the federal petition to compel arbitration is MOOT in light of the state court's order compelling arbitration of the same claims. This dismissal is without prejudice to the right of petitioners to refile their petition if the state court vacates its order compelling arbitration.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to send copy of this order to counsel by facsimile in lieu of mail.