Opinion
1:23 CV 1699
11-30-2023
Vladimir Alexander L. Swerchowsky, Plaintiff, v. U-Haul International, Inc., et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court upon Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Proceedings and Compel Arbitration (Doc. 8). The motion is filed on behalf of defendants U-Haul International Inc., AMERCO, Edward J. Shoen, and Serena Barth. Plaintiff also named C.T. Corporation System as a defendant. Plaintiff did not name U-Haul Co. of Massachusetts and Ohio, Inc. (“U-Haul”), which, according to defendants, is plaintiff's actual employer. Plaintiff does not oppose defendants' motion.
This case arises out of pro se plaintiff's employment with U-Haul. U-Haul is a related entity to the corporate defendants named in the complaint, with the exception of C.T. Corporation System. There are no specific allegations directed at this defendant, but defendants argue that C.T. Corporation System is simply its statutory agent. Plaintiff docs not dispute this fact. Accordingly, plaintiff s claims against C.T. Corporation System arc dismissed as there arc no facts in the complaint stating a claim against this defendant.
The Court further finds that defendants' motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint is well-taken. Defendants attach an arbitration agreement signed by plaintiff. Defendants argue that all claims in the complaint arise out of plaintiff s employment relationship with U-Haul. In addition, the arbitration agreement governs all of the remaining defendant entities and individuals. Accordingly, all claims and parties arc subject to binding arbitration. Plaintiff did not file a brief in opposition and, therefore, offers no argument in response. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the motion and reply brief, defendants' motion is GRANTED. As all claims arc subject to the arbitration agreement, the ease is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.