The FAA provides that, for any suit that is referable to arbitration, the Court will stay proceedings while the matter is resolved. 9 U.S.C. § 3. However, the parties agree that the MaK Contract also falls under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “Convention”), ratified at 9 U.S.C. § 202 et seq.

The FAA provides that, for any suit that is referable to arbitration, the Court will stay proceedings while the matter is resolved. 9 U.S.C. § 3. However, the parties agree that the MaK Contract also falls under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “Convention”), ratified at 9 U.S.C. § 202 et seq.

(emphasis in original). 8 9 U.S.C. § 3 states as follows: If any suit or proceeding be brought in any of the courts of the United States upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for such arbitration, the court in which such suit is pending, upon being satisfied that the issue involved in such suit or proceeding is referable to arbitration under such an agreement, shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement, providing the applicant for the stay is not in default in proceeding with such arbitration. 9 U.S.C. § 4 states as follows: A party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of another to arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration may petition any United States district court which, save for such agreement, would have jurisdiction under Title 28, in a civil action or in admiralty of the subject matter of a suit arising out of the controversy between the parties,

(Agreement §§ 3, 6, 8(C).) The Agreement also contained various waivers and releases from liability, as well as a representation by Patel that he was adequately sophisticated to enter into the transaction.

Accordingly, 3MT's claims against Winterbottom and Church may be brought under the arbitration agreement with Bentley. CONCLUSION In sum, the court finds that the defendants have satisfied their burden under sections 3 and 4 of the FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 3–4, as well as under the summary judgment-like standards set forth in Phox v. Atriums Mgmt. Co., 230 F.Supp.2d 1279, 1282 (D.Kan.2002) and Klocek v. Gateway, Inc., 104 F.Supp.2d 1332, 1336 (D.Kan.2000).

Accordingly, 3MT's claims against Winterbottom and Church may be brought under the arbitration agreement with Bentley. CONCLUSION In sum, the court finds that the defendants have satisfied their burden under sections 3 and 4 of the FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 3–4, as well as under the summary judgment-like standards set forth in Phox v. Atriums Mgmt. Co., 230 F.Supp.2d 1279, 1282 (D.Kan.2002) and Klocek v. Gateway, Inc., 104 F.Supp.2d 1332, 1336 (D.Kan.2000).

Accordingly, 3MT's claims against Winterbottom and Church may be brought under the arbitration agreement with Bentley. CONCLUSION In sum, the court finds that the defendants have satisfied their burden under sections 3 and 4 of the FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 3–4, as well as under the summary judgment-like standards set forth in Phox v. Atriums Mgmt. Co., 230 F.Supp.2d 1279, 1282 (D.Kan.2002) and Klocek v. Gateway, Inc., 104 F.Supp.2d 1332, 1336 (D.Kan.2000).

Accordingly, 3MT's claims against Winterbottom and Church may be brought under the arbitration agreement with Bentley. CONCLUSION In sum, the court finds that the defendants have satisfied their burden under sections 3 and 4 of the FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 3–4, as well as under the summary judgment-like standards set forth in Phox v. Atriums Mgmt. Co., 230 F.Supp.2d 1279, 1282 (D.Kan.2002) and Klocek v. Gateway, Inc., 104 F.Supp.2d 1332, 1336 (D.Kan.2000).

CONCLUSION Because the Parties entered into a valid contract requiring the submission of any disputes arising out of Plaintiff’s relationship with Vacasa to be decided in arbitration on an individual basis, and this dispute falls within the scope of that agreement, this Court should order Plaintiff to individually arbitrate her non-PAGA claims against Vacasa, dismiss her class and collective claims, and stay her PAGA claims pending the outcome of the individual arbitration. See 9 U.S.C. § 3. Dated: April 24, 2017 /s/ CARLOS JIMENEZ CARLOS JIMENEZ RADHA D.S. KULKARNI LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant VACASA LLC Firmwide:146971738.10 082185.

Once the Court finds an enforceable arbitration agreement, the Court is to dismiss the action or direct the parties to proceed to arbitration pursuant to their agreement and stay the judicial action. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 218 (1983); Sparling v. Hoffman Construction Company, 864 F.635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988) (section 3 gives court authority to grant a stay pending arbitration).