Opinion
No. EP-05-CA-090-PRM.
August 10, 2005
ORDER
On this day, the Court considered Defendant Datamark, Inc.'s ("Datamark") "Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Abate Proceedings Pending Arbitration and to Dismiss With Prejudice," filed on July 12, 2005, in the above-captioned cause. After due consideration, the Court is of the opinion that Datamark's Motion to Compel Arbitration should be granted for the reasons set forth below.
However, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed without prejudice.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On June 11, 2004, Plaintiff Virginia Peschard ("Peschard") filed suit in state court against her employer Datamark (1) for an on-the-job injury to her right knee, (2) for related negligence comprising Datamark's failure to use proper care in the administration of Peschard's duties to prevent harm to Peschard and Datamark's negligent failure to maintain a safe workplace, and (3) for benefits according to the terms of Datamark's disability policy. On March 21, 2005, Datamark removed the case to federal court. In the instant motion, Datamark seeks dismissal of Peschard's suit and an order compelling arbitration of Peschard's claims pursuant to the Parties' written agreement to arbitrate their disputes. Peschard failed to respond to Datamark's Motion to Compel Arbitration.
The policy is formally called the Occupational Injury Benefit Program.
II. DISCUSSION
In ruling on a Motion to Compel Arbitration, the Court proceeds in two steps. Buckmaster v. Xerox Capital Servs, LLC, No. 04-CV-2334-M, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10305, at *1 (N.D. Tex. May 27, 2005). First, the Court must decide whether the Parties have agreed to arbitrate the dispute at issue. OPE Int'l, LP, v. Chet Morrison Contractors, Inc., 258 F.3d 443, 445 (5th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). "This determination involves two considerations: (1) whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties; and (2) whether the dispute in question falls within the scope of that arbitration agreement." Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted). Second, the Court must assess "whether legal constraints external to the parties' agreement foreclosed the arbitration of those claims" at issue. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 628 (1985).
With regard to step one, Datamark has submitted a copy of its "Problem Resolution Program," as well as a copy of a "Receipt and Arbitration Acknowledgement [sic]" signed by Peschard. The Problem Resolution Program mandates that Datamark employees use its enumerated dispute resolution process, including arbitration, rather than courtroom litigation, to solve certain work-related problems. Def.'s Mot. to Compel Arbitration, Attach. A, Problem Resolution Program, at 2. The Problem Resolution Program expressly covers employee tort claims against Datamark, including claims for physical injury regardless of whether such injury occurred within the course and scope of one's employment. Id. at 10. The Problem Resolution Program also covers claims for benefits under any employee benefit plans sponsored by Datamark. Id.
The Receipt and Arbitration Acknowledgment, dated August 3, 2003, states in pertinent part:
I also acknowledge that my Employer has adopted a company policy described in this Program booklet that requires all employment-related disputes involving my legally protected rights to be submitted to an arbitrator, rather than a judge and jury in court. I agree to use the dispute resolution procedures described in this Program booklet to resolve any covered claims. . . .
Def.'s Mot. to Compel Arbitration, Attach. A, Receipt and Arbitration Acknowledgment. The Acknowledgment bears Peschard's signature and the signature of a Datamark representative.
It is clear that the Parties had an agreement to arbitrate and that Peschard's two tort claims against Datamark and her third claim for benefits under Datamark's Occupational Injury Benefit Program fall squarely within the scope of the Parties' agreement to arbitrate. Peschard failed to respond to Datamark's Motion to Compel Arbitration, and consequently fails to challenge the validity of the Parties' arbitration agreement. Thus, the Court concludes that the Parties had a valid agreement to arbitrate the claims at issue.
Furthermore, in reference to step two of the arbitration inquiry, Peschard has failed to assert that any external legal constraints render her claims non-arbitrable. The Court also concludes that enforcement of the Parties' arbitration agreement "will not offend any statute, or other expression of congressional intent to preclude waiver of judicial remedies." Buckmaster, No. 04-CV-2334-M, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10305, at *2; see also Kramer v. Smith Barney, 80 F.3d 1080, 1084 (5th Cir. 1996) ("We agree that Congress did not intend to exempt statutory ERISA claims from the dictates of the [Federal] Arbitration Act.").
Thus, the Court finds that the Parties had a valid agreement to arbitrate certain employment disputes and that all three of Peschard's claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Consequently, the Court must stay proceedings on Peschard's claims pending arbitration, or may alternatively dismiss Peschard's claims. See Fedmet Corp. v. M/V Buyalyk, 194 F.3d 674, 678 (5th Cir. 1999) (noting that where an opposing party has commenced suit on an arbitrable issue a stay is mandated by the Federal Arbitration Act. However, "this rule . . . was not intended to limit dismissal of a case in the proper circumstances") (internal quotations and citation omitted). The Fifth Circuit has held that "[i]f all of the issues raised before the district court are arbitrable, dismissal is not inappropriate." Id. Thus, the Court concludes that Datamark's Motion to Compel Arbitration should be granted, and Peschard's claims dismissed without prejudice.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis of facts and legal principles, the Court is of the opinion that Datamark's Motion to Compel Arbitration should be granted.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Datamark's "Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Abate Proceedings Pending Arbitration and to Dismiss With Prejudice" is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties arbitrate Peschard's claims, pursuant to the terms of Datamark's Problem Resolution Program.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned cause is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pending arbitration.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk shall close this matter.