From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sherrill v. S&D Carwash Mgmt.

United States District Court, Southern District of Texas
Sep 30, 2021
Civil Action 4:20-cv-01475 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 30, 2021)

Opinion

Civil Action 4:20-cv-01475

09-30-2021

REBEKAH SHERRILL, Plaintiff. v. S&D CARWASH MANAGEMENT, LLC D/B/A QUICK QUACK CAR WASH AND JMT SPINDRIFT PARTNERS, LLC, Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

GEORGE C. HANKS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On August 11, 2021, S&D Carwash Management, LLC, d/b/a Quick Quack Car Wash's (“S&D”) Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Compel Arbitration (Dkt. 50) and JMT Spindrift Partners, LLC's (“JMT”) Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 54) were referred to United States Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). See Dkt. 66. Judge Edison filed a Memorandum and Recommendation on September 15, 2021, recommending that: (1) S&D's motion be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; (2) JMT's motion be GRANTED in so far as it requests the Court refer the matter to arbitration; and (3) all claims brought by Plaintiff be referred to arbitration and this matter STAYED pending resolution of the arbitration. See Dkt. 70.

On September 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed her Objections. Dkt. 71. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge's] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection [has been] made.” After conducting this de novo review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

The Court has carefully considered the Objections; the Memorandum and Recommendation; the pleadings; and the record. The Court ACCEPTS Judge Edison's Memorandum and Recommendation and ADOPTS it as the opinion of the Court. To be clear, nothing in Judge Edison's Memorandum and Recommendation, or this Order adopting the Memorandum and Recommendation, is intended to suggest that Defendants were (or were not) Plaintiffs single employer. That is an issue for the arbitrator to decide. It is therefore ORDERED that:

(1) Judge Edison's Memorandum and Recommendation (Dkt. 70) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety as the holding of the Court;

(2) S&D's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Compel Arbitration (Dkt. 50) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;

(3) JMT's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 54) is GRANTED in so far as it requests the Court refer the matter to arbitration; and

(4) All claims brought by Plaintiff are referred to arbitration and this matter is STAYED pending resolution of the arbitration.

It is so ORDERED


Summaries of

Sherrill v. S&D Carwash Mgmt.

United States District Court, Southern District of Texas
Sep 30, 2021
Civil Action 4:20-cv-01475 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 30, 2021)
Case details for

Sherrill v. S&D Carwash Mgmt.

Case Details

Full title:REBEKAH SHERRILL, Plaintiff. v. S&D CARWASH MANAGEMENT, LLC D/B/A QUICK…

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of Texas

Date published: Sep 30, 2021

Citations

Civil Action 4:20-cv-01475 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 30, 2021)