Wheeler v. Dollar Tree Stores Inc

MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION to Dismiss

W.D. La.October 9, 2017

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION STEPHANIE WHEELER Plaintiff, versus DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC. Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 6:17-cv-847 Judge Robert G. James Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Hanna DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS AND COMPEL ARBITRATION OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. /s/ Jennifer L. Englander Jennifer L. Englander (La. Bar No. 29572) 701 Poydras Street, Suite 3500 New Orleans, LA 70139 Telephone: (504) 648-3840 Facsimile: (504) 648-3859 jennifer.englander@ogletreedeakins.com and Gregory Guidry, T.A. (La. Bar No. 06489) 603 Silverstone Road, Suite 102A Lafayette, LA 70508 Telephone: (337) 769-6583 Facsimile: (337) 989-0441 greg.guidry@ogletreedeakins.com Attorneys for Defendant Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. Case 6:17-cv-00847-RGJ-PJH Document 19 Filed 10/09/17 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 157 i TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE(S) I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................1 II. LAW AND ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................4 A. A Valid Agreement to Arbitrate Exists Between The Parties..................................4 1. Plaintiff Was Employed With Dollar Tree As Of December 8, 2015 ........................................................................................5 2. Plaintiff Signed the Arbitration Agreement .................................................6 3. Plaintiff’s Self-Serving Declaration Lacks Reliability And Credibility ............................................................................................7 4. Dollar Tree Is Entitled to Enforce the Arbitration Agreement Against Plaintiff Under the Louisiana Uniform Electronic Transactions Act ..........................................................................................8 B. Plaintiff’s Claims are Within the Scope of the Arbitration Agreement ...................9 III. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................11 Case 6:17-cv-00847-RGJ-PJH Document 19 Filed 10/09/17 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 158 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Anderson v. Waffle House, Inc., 920 F. Supp. 2d 685 (E.D. La. 2013) .......................................................................................11 Danove v. Davila, 2012 WL 6554073 (E.D. La. Dec. 14, 2012) .............................................................................5 EEOC v. Waffle House, 534 U.S. 279 (2002) .................................................................................................................10 Encompass Power Services, Inc. v. Engineering & Const. Co., Inc., 224 Fed. Appx. 329 (5th Cir. 2007) .........................................................................................10 Fedmet Corp. v. M/V BUYALYK, 194 F.3d 674 (5th Cir. 1999) ...................................................................................................11 Granger v. Christus Health Cent. La., 144 So. 3d 736 (La. 2013) .........................................................................................................4 Grant v. Houser, 469 Fed. Appx. 310 (5th Cir. 2012) ...........................................................................................4 Murrell v. Casterline, 307 Fed. Appx. 778 (5th Cir. 2008) ...........................................................................................6 Rodgers-Glass v. Conroe Hosp. Corp., 2015 WL 4190598 (S.D. Tex. July 10, 2015) ..........................................................................11 Rogers v. Brown, 986 F. Supp. 354 (M.D. La. 1997) .........................................................................................4, 5 Sherman v. RK Restaurants Holdings, Inc., 2014 WL 4540023 (E.D. La. Sept. 11, 2014) ............................................................................4 United Steelworkers of Am. v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574 (1960) .................................................................................................................10 Statutes 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq...................................................................................................................10 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ..............................................................................................................10 Case 6:17-cv-00847-RGJ-PJH Document 19 Filed 10/09/17 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 159 iii La. Civ. Code art. 24 ........................................................................................................................5 La. Civ. Code art. 1831 ....................................................................................................................4 La. Civ. Code art. 1918 ....................................................................................................................4 La. Civ. Code art. 1927 ....................................................................................................................4 La. Civ. Code art. 1966 ....................................................................................................................4 La. Civ. Code art. 1971 ....................................................................................................................4 La. R.S. § 9:2607 .............................................................................................................................4 La. R.S. § 9:2609 .............................................................................................................................9 La. R.S. § 9:2609(A)(1) and (2) .......................................................................................................8 La. R.S. § 9:2609(B) ........................................................................................................................9 La. R.S. § 9:2610(2) .........................................................................................................................9 Louisiana Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. ............................................................................8 Case 6:17-cv-00847-RGJ-PJH Document 19 Filed 10/09/17 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 160 1 Pursuant to the Court’s Memorandum Ruling (R. Doc. 16), Defendant Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. (“Dollar Tree”) files this Supplemental Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration. (R. Doc. 6). Dollar Tree’s Motion seeks dismissal of Plaintiff Stephanie Wheeler’s claims of race discrimination, retaliation, and failure to pay wages and overtime because she agreed to arbitrate these claims pursuant to the Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims (“Arbitration Agreement”) she entered into with Dollar Tree. In her Opposition, Plaintiff alleges that she never signed the Arbitration Agreement and did not consent to arbitrate her claims against Dollar Tree. (R. Doc. 13, p. 3). On August 8, 2017, the Court issued a Memorandum Ruling deferring resolution of Dollar Tree’s Motion to allow for discovery and supplemental briefing on whether an agreement to arbitrate existed between the parties and whether Plaintiff’s claims are within the scope of that agreement. (R. Doc. 16, pp. 8-9). As set forth below, the admissible, uncontroverted evidence establishes that a valid agreement to arbitrate exists between the parties and that the dispute underlying this lawsuit falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND In December 2015, Angela McKee was the Store Manager for Store #5090 in Lafayette. (See, Exhibit A, Declaration of Angela McKee, ¶ 3). On or around December 8, 2015, Ms. McKee hired Plaintiff to be a cashier at Store #5090. (Id., ¶ 4). During this time, all new Dollar Tree associates were required to review, complete, and sign various forms at the start of their employment. New associates completed this task on the store computer, electronically reviewing, completing, and signing new-hire forms. (Id., ¶ 5). It was Ms. McKee’s standard practice to sit with each new associate while they completed the new-hire forms on the store computer. Ms. Case 6:17-cv-00847-RGJ-PJH Document 19 Filed 10/09/17 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 161 2 McKee did this so she could answer any questions the associate might have, and because Ms. McKee was also required to electronically sign certain new-hire forms. (Id., ¶ 6). In keeping with her standard practice, Ms. McKee sat with Plaintiff while she completed her new-hire forms in December 2015. (Id., ¶ 7). One of the new-hire forms new associates were required to sign was the Arbitration Agreement. New associates were afforded an opportunity to review the Arbitration Agreement during the on-boarding process, and were required to electronically sign the Arbitration Agreement in order to complete the new-hire forms and begin working for Dollar Tree. (Id., ¶ 8). Plaintiff completed her new-hire forms on the store computer, including digitally signing the Arbitration Agreement. (Id., ¶ 9). Additionally, Ms. McKee digitally signed the manager portion of Plaintiff’s new-hire paperwork, the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9). (McKee Decl., ¶ 10). Ms. McKee did not place Plaintiff’s digital signature on the Arbitration Agreement and no other employees were at the store computer while Plaintiff completed her new-hire forms. (Id., ¶¶ 11-12). Accordingly, no other employee could have placed Plaintiff’s digital signature on the Arbitration Agreement. (Id., ¶ 13). Plaintiff completed her new hire paperwork on the store computer through a secure web platform known as “Career Launch,” which Dollar Tree used to onboard new associates. (Declaration of Vince Votta, R. Doc. 6-2, ¶ 5). To access Career Launch, the newly hired associate had to create a unique alphanumeric login ID and password, known only to the associate, and which the associate had to enter each time the associate accessed Career Launch. (Votta Decl., ¶ 6). Newly hired associates accessed Career Launch using the associate’s uniquely created alphanumeric login ID and password to review and electronically sign various documents. (Id., ¶ 7). Case 6:17-cv-00847-RGJ-PJH Document 19 Filed 10/09/17 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 162 3 In December 2015, one of the documents that each new store associate had to review and sign in Career Launch was Dollar Tree’s Arbitration Agreement. (Id., ¶ 8). Career Launch gave each associate the option to view the Arbitration Agreement in English or Spanish. To review the Arbitration Agreement, the associate had to first review a screen summarizing the purpose of the agreement. (Id.). The screen then displayed a prompt asking the associate to either (i) click a link to review “Frequently Asked Questions” (“FAQs”) about arbitration, or (ii) click a second link to review the full Arbitration Agreement. (Id.). Even if the associate first clicked on the link to review the FAQs, Career Launch required that the associate click on the link to review the full Arbitration Agreement before proceeding. (Id.). There was no set time limit on an associate’s review of the Arbitration Agreement and an associate could take as much time as he or she needed in order to review the Agreement. (Id.). Once the associate clicked on the link to review the full Arbitration Agreement, the website opened the Arbitration Agreement for the associate to read in Adobe Acrobat Portable Document format. (Id., ¶ 9). To proceed past the webpage displaying the full Arbitration Agreement, the associate had to click on a statement affirming that she had received and read the Arbitration Agreement. (Votta Decl., ¶ 9). To proceed further, the associate had to sign the Arbitration Agreement by first entering, for a second time, the unique password she created. After the associate entered her unique password, the website prompted the associate to click another button, which placed the associate’s digital signature on the Arbitration Agreement with the date she signed it. (Id.). Dollar Tree records indicate Plaintiff accessed and used Career Launch on December 8, 2015, to complete her onboarding as a new associate at Store #5090. (Votta Decl., ¶ 10). A true and correct copy of the Arbitration Agreement that Plaintiff reviewed, acknowledged, and electronically signed is attached to Mr. Votta’s declaration as Exhibit 1. (Id., ¶ 11). Page 4 of the Case 6:17-cv-00847-RGJ-PJH Document 19 Filed 10/09/17 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 163 4 Arbitration Agreement expressly provides that it may be digitally signed in lieu of a manual signature: Electronic Signatures: The Parties agree that their electronic signatures, whether digital or encrypted, are intended to authenticate this writing and have the same force and effect as manual signatures. Electronic signature means any electronic sound, symbol or process attached to or logically associated with a record and executed and adopted by a Party with the intent to sign such record. (Id., ¶ 12). II. LAW AND ARGUMENT A. A Valid Agreement to Arbitrate Exists Between the Parties The party seeking to compel arbitration need only prove the existence of an agreement to arbitrate by a preponderance of the evidence.”1 Four elements are required for a valid contract: (1) capacity to contract; (2) mutual consent; (3) a lawful cause; (4) and an object that is lawful, possible, and determined or determinable.2 Article 1927 of the Louisiana Civil Code explains that “[a] contract is formed by the consent of the parties established through offer and acceptance.” Unless the law requires a certain formality for a type of contract, offer and acceptance may be made orally, in writing, or by action or inaction that clearly indicates consent.3 State law gives legal effect to both electronic contracts and signatures.4 Additionally, “under Louisiana law, ‘obligation cannot exist without a lawful cause,’” which “is defined as ‘the reason why a party obligates himself.’”5 With respect to employment agreements requiring arbitration of employment-related claims, where an employee 1 Grant v. Houser, 469 Fed. Appx. 310, 315 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing Banks v. Mitsubishi Motors Credit of Am., Inc., 156 Fed. Appx. 710, 712 (5th Cir. 2005)); see also La. Civ. Code art. 1831. 2 Granger v. Christus Health Cent. La., 144 So. 3d 736, 760–61 (La. 2013); see also La. Civ. Code arts. 1918, 1927, 1966, 1971. 3 La. Civ. Code art. 1927. 4 La. R.S. § 9:2607. 5 Sherman v. RK Restaurants Holdings, Inc., 2014 WL 4540023, at *5 (E.D. La. Sept. 11, 2014) (citing La. R.S. § 5:1966); Rogers v. Brown, 986 F. Supp. 354, 359 (M.D. La. 1997) (quoting La. Civ. Code arts. 1966-1967). Case 6:17-cv-00847-RGJ-PJH Document 19 Filed 10/09/17 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 164 5 receives consideration in the form of employment for which she is compensated and the employer receives consideration in the form of labor to be provided by the employee, the mutual benefits received by the parties as a result of the employment agreement are sufficient consideration to support the contract. 6 In this case, Plaintiff and Dollar Tree had the capacity to contract7 and the Arbitration Agreement also concerns a certain object and lawful cause.8 Indeed, the Arbitration Agreement was a condition of Plaintiff’s employment with Dollar Tree, as indicated by the express language in the Agreement that “Dollar Tree’s offer of employment to Associate is conditioned on and made in consideration of this Agreement.” (R. Doc. 6-2, p. 8, “Consideration”). Additional cause exists because the Arbitration Agreement is mutual, such that in addition to consideration in the form of employment, Plaintiff also received consideration in the form of Dollar Tree’s agreement to arbitrate. (R. Doc. 6-2, p. 8). Finally, mutual consent exists because a preponderance of the evidence establishes Plaintiff electronically signed the Arbitration Agreement consenting to same. 1. Plaintiff Was Employed With Dollar Tree as of December 8, 2015. As an initial matter, Plaintiff was employed by Dollar Tree from June 11, 2015, through November 28, 2015, and again from on or around December 8, 2015, until her termination on August 8, 2015. Although Plaintiff alleges in her self-serving declaration that she was not employed by Dollar Tree in December 2015, the fact she was employed as of December 8, 2015, 6 Rogers, 986 F. Supp. at 360 and fn.28 (citing Combs v. Howard, 481 So. 2d 179, 181 (La. App. 3d Cir. 1985), writ denied, 484 So. 2d 671 (La. 1986)). 7 La. Civ. Code arts. 24 and 1918 (all persons, natural and juridical, have the capacity to contract). 8 Danove v. Davila, 2012 WL 6554073, at *2 (E.D. La. Dec. 14, 2012) (a dispute resolution policy constitutes a certain object and lawful cause of an arbitration agreement) (citing La. Civ. Code art. 1971 (Parties are free to contract for any object that is lawful, possible and determined or determinable); Gunderson v. F.A. Richard & Assocs., Inc., 937 So. 2d 916, 920 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2006) (Arbitration agreements are lawful because “both Louisiana and federal law favor arbitration”)). Case 6:17-cv-00847-RGJ-PJH Document 19 Filed 10/09/17 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 165 6 is supported by the declarations of Angela McKee (Exh. A, ¶ 4) and Vince Votta (R. Doc. 6-2, ¶ 10). Indeed, Plaintiff failed to timely respond to a Request for Admission that she was employed by Dollar Tree at Store #5090 as of December 8, 2015; as such, this fact is conclusively established. 9 Thus, Plaintiff was employed with Dollar Tree at the time her Arbitration Agreement was signed. 2. Plaintiff Signed the Arbitration Agreement. The process for affixing an electronic signature to the arbitration agreement between Dollar Tree and its employees, and the verification and authentication of electronic signatures, is explained in the declarations of Ms. McKee and Mr. Votta. Employees complete their new employee paperwork, including signing the Arbitration Agreement, through a secure web platform known as “Career Launch,” which they access on the store computer. (McKee Decl., ¶ 5; Votta Decl., ¶ 5). To access Career Launch a new employee must create a unique alphanumeric login identification and password, which is known only to the associate. (Votta Decl., ¶ 6). Newly hired associates accessed Career Launch using his or her uniquely created alphanumeric login and password to review and electronically sign various documents at the start of their employment. (Id., ¶ 7). In December 2015, one of the documents a new associate was required to review and sign was Dollar Tree’s Mutual Arbitration Agreement. (Id., ¶ 8). Career Launch required the associate to review the Arbitration Agreement before proceeding with the onboarding paperwork. (Id.; McKee Decl., ¶ 8). To proceed past the webpage displaying the full Arbitration Agreement, the 9 See Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, propounded on August 21, 2017 (Exhibit B), and Plaintiff’s untimely responses provided on October 3, 2017 (Exhibit C). Because her response was not served within 30 days of service of the Request, the facts therein are deemed conclusively admitted, including the fact she was employed at Dollar Tree Store # 5090 as of December 8, 2015. Murrell v. Casterline, 307 Fed. Appx. 778, 780 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Hulsey v. Texas, 929 F.2d 168, 171 (5th Cir. 1991); Dukes v. South Carolina Ins. Co., 770 F.2d 545, 548–49 (5th Cir. 1985)). Case 6:17-cv-00847-RGJ-PJH Document 19 Filed 10/09/17 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 166 7 associate was required to click on a statement affirming that the associate received and read the arbitration agreement. (Votta Decl., ¶ 9). To proceed further, the associate had to sign the arbitration agreement by entering, for a second time, the unique password she created and then clicking another button which placed the associate’s digital signature on the Arbitration Agreement with the date that the associate signed it. (Id.). Pursuant to the Agreement itself, an electronic signature authenticates the document. (R. Doc. 6-2, p. 8, “Electronic Signatures”). A preponderance of the evidence establishes that Plaintiff signed the Arbitration Agreement on December 8, 2015. Ms. McKee attests that she sat with Plaintiff while Plaintiff completed her new employee paperwork and signed the Arbitration Agreement at the store computer, and that neither McKee nor any other employee placed Plaintiff’s electronic signature on the Arbitration Agreement. (McKee Decl., ¶¶ 4, 7-12). Mr. Votta attests that Plaintiff’s unique identification and password – which only Plaintiff knew – were necessary for her to electronically sign the Arbitration Agreement, which she did on December 8, 2015. (Votta Decl., ¶¶ 6-11). Thus, there is mutual consent and a valid agreement to arbitrate exists between the parties. 3. Plaintiff’s Self-Serving Declaration Lacks Reliability and Credibility Plaintiff states in the declaration attached to her Opposition that she did not was not asked to sign the Arbitration Agreement when she became rehired by Dollar Tree in January 2016. (R. Doc. 13-1, ¶¶ 10-14). These self-serving statements are not corroborated by any other evidence and are contradicted by the declarations of Mr. Votta and Ms. McKee, discussed above. Notably, Plaintiff provides no explanation for how her electronic signature became affixed to the Arbitration Agreement. Indeed, for this to occur, Plaintiff would have had to create a unique password known only to her. (Votta Decl., ¶¶ 5-7). Thus, the Arbitration Agreement could not Case 6:17-cv-00847-RGJ-PJH Document 19 Filed 10/09/17 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 167 8 have been signed by anyone else and was not signed by any other associate. (McKee Decl., ¶ 7- 12). Without signing the Arbitration Agreement, Plaintiff would not have been able to complete her new hire paperwork and start work. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s self-serving declaration is neither credible nor reliable, and should not be considered by the Court. Ultimately, the preponderance of the evidence establishes that Plaintiff electronically signed the Arbitration Agreement, thus agreeing to arbitrate the claims she now seeks to litigate in this Court. Accordingly, Dollar Tree’s Motion should be granted and the court should compel Plaintiff to submit all of her claims to arbitration and dismiss this case. 4. Dollar Tree Is Entitled to Enforce the Arbitration Agreement Against Plaintiff under the Louisiana Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. In addition to the lack of support for her self-serving argument, Dollar Tree is entitled to rely on Plaintiff’s electronic signature on the Arbitration Agreement pursuant to the Louisiana Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. Plaintiff offers no explanation for how her electronic signature came to be on the Arbitration Agreement between her and Dollar Tree. Even in light of her argument that she never signed the Arbitration Agreement, Dollar Tree is permitted to attribute Plaintiff’s electronic signature of the Agreement to her. The Louisiana Uniform Electronic Transactions Act provides that “an electronic signature is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person,” and that “[t]he act of the person may be shown in any manner, including a showing of the efficacy of any security procedure applied to determine the person to which the . . . electronic signature was attributable.” 10 The Act further states that the effect of an “electronic signature attributed to a 10 La. R.S. § 9:2609(A)(1) and (2). Case 6:17-cv-00847-RGJ-PJH Document 19 Filed 10/09/17 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 168 9 person . . . is determined from the context and surrounding circumstances at the time of its creation.” 11 The context and surrounding circumstances of Plaintiff’s signed Arbitration Agreement establish that the electronic signature is attributable to her. Ms. McKee sat with Plaintiff at the store computer while Plaintiff completed the new hire paperwork online and electronically signed the Arbitration Agreement on December 8, 2015. (Votta Decl., ¶ 11; McKee Decl., ¶¶ 4, 7-12). Plaintiff was the only individual who could have signed the arbitration agreement. (Id.). The Arbitration Agreement was a required step of Career Launch which can only be accessed with an associate’s unique identification and password; all associates are required to sign the Arbitration Agreement in order to complete the hiring process and become employed by Dollar Tree. (Votta Decl., ¶ 9; McKee Decl., ¶¶ 8-9). As set forth above, the preponderance of the evidence establishes that Plaintiff completed her new hire paperwork in Career Launch and signed the Arbitration Agreement as part of that process. Thus, the context and surrounding circumstances of the completion of Plaintiff’s new hire paperwork in Career Launch, including the signing of the Arbitration Agreement, establish that Plaintiff’s electronic signature on the Arbitration Agreement is attributable to her. 12 Therefore, Plaintiff cannot avoid the effect of her signature indicating her consent to the Arbitration Agreement. 13 B. Plaintiff’s Claims are Within the Scope of the Arbitration Agreement. The Arbitration Agreement between Plaintiff and Dollar Tree states as follows: 11 La. R.S. § 9:2609(B). 12 La. R.S. § 9:2609. 13 La. R.S. § 9:2610(2). Case 6:17-cv-00847-RGJ-PJH Document 19 Filed 10/09/17 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 169 10 Claims Covered by the Agreement (Which must be Arbitrated): The Parties agree to the resolution by arbitration of all claims or controversies (“claims”), past, present or future, that can be raised under applicable federal, state, or local law, arising out of or related to Associate’s employment (or its termination), that Dollar Tree may have against Associate or that the Associate may have against [Dollar Tree]. Claims subject to arbitration include, but are not limited to, claims for: overtime . . . pay for bank runs, off the clock work, wage, or other compensation; . . . wrongful termination; retaliation or discrimination (including, but not limited to race, sex, . . .) . . .. (Arbitration Agreement, R. Doc. 6-2, p. 5). Plaintiff’s lawsuit asserts claims of discrimination based on race, retaliation for alleged complaints of said discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. (R. Doc. 1-1). These are precisely the type of claims Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate. “Absent some ambiguity in the agreement . . . it is the language of the contract that defines the scope of disputes subject to arbitration.” 14 The Arbitration Agreement is not ambiguous. “Claims Covered by the Agreement” appears in bold on the first page of the Agreement and the list of claims specifically identifies claims of race discrimination, retaliation, and for overtime, pay for bank runs, and off the clock work, which are precisely the claims alleged in Plaintiff’s Petition. (See R. Doc. 6-2, p. 5). An agreement to arbitrate should not be denied effect “unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers” the asserted dispute. 15 That is not the case here. Pursuant to the above language in the Agreement, each and every one of Plaintiff’s claims is subject to arbitration. To the extent there is any doubt 14 See EEOC v. Waffle House, 534 U.S. 279, 289 (2002). 15 United Steelworkers of Am. v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582-83 (1960); Encompass Power Services, Inc. v. Engineering & Const. Co., Inc., 224 Fed. Appx. 329, 332 (5th Cir. 2007). Case 6:17-cv-00847-RGJ-PJH Document 19 Filed 10/09/17 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 170 11 concerning the scope of the arbitrable issues – and there should be none – those doubts should be resolved in favor of arbitration. 16 Finally, where all of Plaintiff's claims are referable to arbitration, dismissal of the instant suit is appropriate. 17 Since the Arbitration Agreement indisputably covers each of Plaintiff’s claims, the Court should compel Plaintiff to submit all of her claims to arbitration and dismiss this lawsuit. III. CONCLUSION Dollar Tree has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that an agreement existed between it and Plaintiff under which Plaintiff agreed to submit to arbitration the very claims she now attempts to litigate. The totality of the evidence establishes that Plaintiff completed new hire paperwork through Career Launch and electronically signed the Arbitration Agreement through the use of her unique i.d. and password. Plaintiff’s electronic signature on the Arbitration Agreement is attributable to her, such that she is bound by it and must submit her claims to arbitration. Finally, the claims Plaintiff improperly asserted in her Petition are specified in the Arbitration Agreement as claims covered by the agreement and subject to arbitration, such that the claims are within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement. Accordingly, Dollar Tree’s Motion should be granted and Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed in light of her agreement to submit her claims to arbitration. 16 Rodgers-Glass v. Conroe Hosp. Corp., 2015 WL 4190598, at *7 (S.D. Tex. July 10, 2015) (citing The Rice Co. (Suisse), S .A. v. Precious Flowers Ltd., 523 F.3d 528, 534 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp., 460 U.S. at 24-25)). 17 Anderson v. Waffle House, Inc., 920 F. Supp. 2d 685, 695 (E.D. La. 2013) (Where an order compelling arbitration resolves all issues raised and leaves no issue to be litigated, dismissal of the litigation is appropriate) (citing Alford v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 975 F.2d 1161, 1164 (5th Cir. 1992) (the language in Section 3 of the FAA mandating a stay was not intended to limit dismissal when all of the issues raised in the district court are referable to arbitration); Fedmet Corp. v. M/V BUYALYK, 194 F.3d 674, 676 (5th Cir. 1999) (“We have previously held that district courts have discretion to dismiss cases in favor of arbitration under 9 U.S.C. § 3.”). Case 6:17-cv-00847-RGJ-PJH Document 19 Filed 10/09/17 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 171 12 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. /s/ Jennifer L. Englander Jennifer L. Englander (La. Bar No. 29572) 701 Poydras Street, Suite 3500 New Orleans, LA 70139 Telephone: (504) 648-3840 Facsimile: (504) 648-3859 jennifer.englander@ogletreedeakins.com and Gregory Guidry, T.A. (La. Bar No. 06489) 603 Silverstone Road, Suite 102A Lafayette, LA 70508 Telephone: (337) 769-6583 Facsimile: (337) 989-0441 greg.guidry@ogletreedeakins.com Attorneys for Defendant Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served on all counsel of record via the Court’s electronic ECF filing system on this the 9th day of October, 2017. /s/ Jennifer L. Englander 30795832.1 Case 6:17-cv-00847-RGJ-PJH Document 19 Filed 10/09/17 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 172