Summary
relying on Choice Hotels to dismiss the matter because the claim is subject to arbitration
Summary of this case from Byrnes v. Santa Fe Nat. Tobacco Co.Opinion
Case No.: GJH-15-1452
12-14-2015
MARLIN VAN HORN, JR., Plaintiff, v. SYMANTEC CORPORATION, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Marlin Van Horn. Jr. has filed suit against Symantec Corporation ("Symantec"), alleging that Symantec breached its contractual duties owed to Van Horn and that Symantec wrongfully withheld Van Horn's wages in violation of Maryland Annotated Code §§ 3-501 to 509. ECF No. 2 at ¶¶ 18, 25. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446. Defendant Symantec removed this matter from the Circuit Court in Montgomery County, Maryland to this Court. ECF No. 1.
This Memorandum Opinion and accompanying Order address Defendant Symantec's Motion to Compel Arbitration, or, in the alternative, to Dismiss the Complaint (ECF No. 9). A hearing is unnecessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2014). For the reasons stated below, Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED and Van Horn's Complaint is DISMISSED.
Unless otherwise noted, all facts are from Van Horn's Complaint and are accepted as true. See Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993). The Court also considers Van Horn's Offer Letter (ECF No. 9-2) and Agreement (ECF No. 9-4). The Court may refer to these documents, attached to Defendant's motion, without converting the motion to one for summary judgment because "they are integral to the complaint and authentic." Philips v. Pitt. Cty. Mem. Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009).
On December 10, 2003, Van Horn received an Offer Letter, a Mutual Arbitration Agreement ("Agreement"), and a Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement from Symantec. See ECF Nos. 9-2, 9-4. Van Horn signed both the Offer Letter and the Agreement on December 15, 2003. Id.
Van Horn was initially hired by VERITAS Software Global Corporation ("VERITAS"), Symantec's predecessor. See ECF No. 9-1 at 3. The Agreement applies to Van Horn's employment with Symantec. ECF No. 9-4 at 1 ("We understand that any reference in this Agreement to VERITAS will be a reference also to its parent companies and affiliated entities, all benefits plans, the benefit plans' sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, and affiliates, and all successors and assigns of any of them.").
The Offer Letter states that the offer was contingent upon Van Horn signing the Agreement and the Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement. ECF No. 9-2 at 2. The Agreement includes the following language:
We agree to arbitrate before a neutral arbitrator any and all disputes or claims between Employee and VERITAS, including claims against any current or former agent or employee of VERITAS, whether the disputes or claims arise under common law, or in tort, contract, or pursuant to a statute, regulation, or ordinance now in existence or which may in the future be enacted or recognized, including, but not limited to, the following claims:
• Claims for fraud, promissory estoppel, fraudulent inducement of contract or breach of contract or contractual obligation, whether such alleged contract or obligation be oral, written, or express or implied by fact or law;
. . .
ECF No. 9-4 at 1-2 (emphasis added).• Claims for non-payment or incorrect payment of wages, commissions, bonuses, severance, employee fringe benefits, stock options and the like, whether claims be pursuant to alleged express or implied contract or obligation, equity, the California Labor Code, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and any other federal, state, or municipal laws concerning wages, compensation or employee benefits . . . .
Van Horn performed sales services for Symantec from "on or about" 2004 to 2015. ECF No. 2 at ¶¶ 6, 10. In 2014, Symantec elected to terminate Van Horn's employment, effective April 3, 2015. Id. at 10. Van Horn alleges that "Symantec has materially breached its contractual obligations to Van Horn by failing to pay Van Horn his severance." ECF No. 2 at ¶ 18.
II. DISCUSSION
The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") favors arbitration agreements and "any doubts concerning the scope of arbitral issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration." Murray v. UFCW Int'l, Local 400, 289 F.3d 297, 301 (4th Cir. 2002). "[I]n a "close call" on arbitrability, the Court must decide in favor of arbitration." Shaffer v. ACS Gov't Servs., 321 F. Supp. 2d 682, 685 (D. Md. 2004). Courts must determine whether the parties actually agreed to arbitrate. Id. In order to generate an issue for resolution by a fact finder, "the party opposing arbitration must make an unequivocal denial that the agreement to arbitrate has been made, and must produce some evidence to substantiate the denial." Whiting-Turner Contr. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 912 F. Supp. 2d 321, 333 (D. Md. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
When parties have entered into a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement and the dispute at issue falls within the scope of that agreement, the FAA requires courts to stay judicial proceedings and compel arbitration in accordance with the agreement's terms. Murray, 289 F.3d at 301. However, "dismissal is a proper remedy when all of the issues presented in a lawsuit are arbitrable." Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc. v. BSR Tropicana Resort, Inc., 252 F.3d 707, 709-10 (4th Cir. 2001).
Van Horn alleges that Symantec breached its contractual duties and failed to pay Van Horn his severance. ECF No. 2 at ¶ 18. Symantec argues that this Court should compel Van Horn to pursue his claims through arbitration because Van Horn agreed to arbitrate any and all disputes between Van Horn and Symantec. ECF No. 9-1 at 5. The Court agrees. In addition to the Agreement stating that Van Horn and VERITAS (and its successor, Symantec) would arbitrate "any and all disputes or claims," both claims brought by Van Horn are expressly listed in the Agreement. ECF No. 9-4 at 1-2 (agreeing to arbitrate claims for "breach of contract or contractual obligation" and non-payment of severance).
Further, Van Horn has not filed an opposition to Symantec's Motion to Compel Arbitration and has not made the required denial of an agreement to arbitrate or provided evidence to substantiate any such denial. See Whiting-Turner Contr. Co., 912 F. Supp. 2d at 333. Accordingly, Van Horn is ordered to pursue his claim, if at all, in arbitration. Symantec's Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED and Van Horn's Complaint is DISMISSED. See Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc., 252 F.3d at 709-10.
The Court will not address the other substantive arguments for dismissal as they are now moot. --------
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Defendant Symantec's Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED and Plaintiff Van Horn's Complaint will be DISMISSED. This case shall be administratively closed pending resolution of the arbitration proceedings. Dated: December 14, 2015
/s/_________
GEORGE J. HAZEL
United States District Judge