Opinion
2:16-cv-00172-KJM-JDP (PC)
07-21-2021
JOHN HARDNEY, Plaintiff, v. R. WARREN, et al., Defendants.
ECF No. 136
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO PARTICIPATE IN ARBITRATION
JEREMY D. PETERSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
On May 28, 2021, the parties participated in a court supervised settlement conference, but they were unable to reach a settlement agreement. ECF No. 132. Defendants subsequently filed a timely motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 135. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion that requests that defendants be ordered to participate in arbitration. ECF No. 136.
Plaintiff's motion does little more than express his frustration over the parties' inability to reach a settlement agreement. Significantly, plaintiff does not claim, much less establish, that the parties have entered into an enforceable arbitration agreement. See Lifescan Inc. v. Premier Diabetic Servs., Inc., 363 F.3d 1010, 1011-12 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that contract principles govern arbitration and that “the district court's role is limited to determining whether a valid arbitration agreement exists . . . .”). Consequently, there is no basis for ordering defendants to arbitrate plaintiff's claims.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs motion for an order requiring defendants to participate in arbitration, ECF No. 136, is denied.
2. Plaintiff is reminded that he must file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment by no later than July 30, 2021.
IT IS SO ORDERED.