Perez et al v. MasTec, Inc. et al
| Guillermo Perez and Victor Perez |
| MasTec, Inc., MasTec Services Company, Inc. and MasTec North America, Inc. |
| 1:2019cv24718 |
| November 14, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
| Joan A Lenard |
| Labor: Fair Standards |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 0002 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 2, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART #8 Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration. Plaintiffs' #1 Complaint alleges that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standard Act, and asserts various claims under Florida common law. (D.E. #1 .) On December 16, 2019, Defendants filed the instant Motion asserting that "Plaintiffs cannot proceed in this forum because they both agreed to resolve all disputes arising from their employment via binding arbitration." (D.E. #8 para. 3.) Defendants attached to their Motion copies of the Dispute Resolution Policy Agreement executed and signed by each Plaintiff. (D.E. 8-1, 8-2.) The Dispute Resolution Policy Agreement requires that "all disputes that otherwise would be resolved in a court of law... be resolved only by an arbitrator through final and binding arbitration and not by way of court or jury trial. (Id.) On December 30, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a #9 Notice of Consent in which they consent "to the entry of an Order staying this litigation and compelling the parties to arbitration."The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") "requires a court to either stay or dismiss a lawsuit and to compel arbitration upon a showing that (a) the plaintiff entered into a written arbitration agreement that is enforceable 'under ordinary state-law' contract principles and (b) the claims before the court fall within the scope of that agreement." Lambert v. Austin Ind., 544 F.3d 1192, 1195 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing 9 U.S.C. 24). The purpose of the FAA is to "ensure judicial enforcement of privately made agreements to arbitrate." Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 219 (1985). "[W]hen considering whether claims are subject to an arbitration provision, a district court must undertake a two-step inquiry." Mims v. Global Creit and Collection Corp., 803 F. Supp. 2d 1349, 1353 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (citing Scott v. EFN Invs., LLC, 312 F. App'x 254, 256 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing Klay v. All Defendants, 389 F.3d 1191, 1200 (11th Cir. 2004)); Patriot Mfg., Inc. v. Dixon, 399 F. Supp. 2d 1298, 1300 (S.D. Ala. 2005) (citing Misubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 626-28 (1985))). "The first step is to determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute, which is a determination made by reference to the ''federal substantive law of arbitrability, applicable to any arbitration agreement within the coverage of the [FAA].''" Id. (quoting Mitsubishi Motors, 473 U.S. at 626 (quoting Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp., 460 U.S. at 24)). "If the court concludes that the parties did agree to arbitrate the dispute in question, then the second step is to consider whether legal constraints external to the parties' agreement foreclose the arbitration of those claims." Id. (citing Patriot Mfg., 399 F. Supp. 2d at 1301).Here, the Court finds (and it is undisputed) that the Parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute, and that there are no legal constraints external to the parties' agreement that would foreclose arbitration of those claims. Therefore, the Court grants the Motion to the extent it seeks an Order compelling arbitration.However, the Court denies the Motion to the extent it seeks an Order staying the case pending arbitration. Motions to compel arbitration are generally treated as motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Maestre v. Am. Express Co., CASE NO. 14-23916-CIV-LENARD/GOODMAN, 2014 WL 12605504, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 18, 2014) ("Motions to compel arbitration are treated generally as motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).") (quoting PTA-FLA, Inc. v. ZTE USA, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-510-J-32JRK, 2011 WL 5024647, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 21, 2011)); see also Langelier v. Seven Seas Cruises S. de R.L., Case No.: 13-61632-CIV-DIMITROULEAS, 2014 WL 12603169, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2014) (citing Shea v. BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc., 2013 WL 869526, at *2 n.3 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2013)). Pursuant Rule 12(h)(3), "[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). "A dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not a judgment on the merits and is entered without prejudice." Stalley ex rel. United States v. Orlando Reg'l Healthcare Sys., Inc., 524 F.3d 1229, 1232 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing Crotwell v. Hockman-Lewis Ltd. 734 F.2d 767, 769 (11th Cir. 1984)).Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants' #8 Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART consistent with this Order; Plaintiffs are COMPELLED to submit their claims to arbitration; Plaintiffs' Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice; all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT; and this case is now CLOSED. This entry constitutes the PAPERLESS ORDER in its entirety. Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 1/2/2020. (gie)
|
| Filing 9 NOTICE by Guillermo Perez, Victor Perez re #8 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Arbitration andDefendant's MOTION to Stay re 7 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer, Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration (Garcia, Alejandro) |
| Filing 8 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Arbitration and, Defendant's MOTION to Stay re 7 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer, Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration by MasTec North America, Inc., MasTec Services Company, Inc., MasTec, Inc.. Attorney Aaron Jarett Reed added to party MasTec North America, Inc.(pty:dft), Attorney Aaron Jarett Reed added to party MasTec Services Company, Inc.(pty:dft), Attorney Aaron Jarett Reed added to party MasTec, Inc.(pty:dft). Responses due by 12/30/2019 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2)(Reed, Aaron) |
|
Filing 7
PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING #6 Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint. Defendants shall have until and including December 16, 2019 to respond to the Complaint. This entry constitutes the PAPERLESS ORDER in its entirety. Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 12/6/2019. (gie)
|
| Filing 6 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer as to #1 Complaint by MasTec North America, Inc., MasTec Services Company, Inc., MasTec, Inc.. Attorney Lindsay Marie Alter added to party MasTec North America, Inc.(pty:dft), Attorney Lindsay Marie Alter added to party MasTec Services Company, Inc.(pty:dft), Attorney Lindsay Marie Alter added to party MasTec, Inc.(pty:dft). (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Alter, Lindsay) |
| Filing 5 Statement of: Claim by Guillermo Perez, Victor Perez re #4 Notice of Court Practice/to Appear/Other,, Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge, (Garcia, Alejandro) |
| Filing 4 Notice of Court Procedure in Actions Brought Under The Fair Labor Standards Act and Referral to Magistrate Judge John J. O'Sullivan for Settlement Conference. Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 11/15/19. See attached document for full details. (dp) |
| Filing 3 Summons Issued as to MasTec North America, Inc., MasTec Services Company, Inc., MasTec, Inc.. (mee) |
| Filing 2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge Joan A. Lenard. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge John J. O'Sullivan is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent. Pro se (NON-PRISONER) litigants may receive Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFS) via email after filing a Consent by Pro Se Litigant (NON-PRISONER) to Receive Notices of Electronic Filing. The consent form is available under the forms section of our website. (mee) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants. Filing fees $ 400.00 receipt number 113C-12146839, filed by Guillermo Perez, Victor Perez. (Attachments: #1 Summon(s), #2 Summon(s), #3 Summon(s), #4 Civil Cover Sheet)(Garcia, Alejandro) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Florida Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
