Danford v. Lowe's Companies Inc
5:19-cv-00041
W.D.N.C.Aug 14, 2019Background
- Plaintiff filed a First Amended Collective and Class Action Complaint asserting multiple counts, including Counts II–V, and named multiple plaintiffs including Harry Houtman.
- Defendants Lowe’s moved to partially dismiss Counts II–V, arguing Houtman was subject to an arbitration agreement and could not litigate those claims in court.
- The parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing named plaintiff Houtman without prejudice and requesting dismissal of Counts II–V with prejudice as to the court action but without prejudice to Houtman’s right to pursue arbitration.
- Judge Kenneth D. Bell granted the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration as to Houtman and granted the parties’ joint stipulation, directing dismissal of Houtman and Counts II–V.
- In light of the stipulation and Judge Bell’s order, the magistrate judge recommended denying defendants’ pending partial motion to dismiss as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Houtman’s claims must be litigated in court despite an arbitration agreement | Houtman asserted the claims in the Amended Complaint (plaintiff maintained merits in court) | Lowe’s argued Houtman is bound by an arbitration agreement and his claims must be resolved in arbitration | District Judge Bell compelled arbitration for Houtman and dismissed his claims from the court action |
| Whether Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss Counts II–V remains ripe | Plaintiff proceeded with joint stipulation to dismiss Houtman and allow arbitration | Defendants sought dismissal of Counts II–V via their motion to dismiss on arbitration grounds | Magistrate judge recommended the partial motion to dismiss be denied as moot given the parties’ stipulation and Judge Bell’s order |
Key Cases Cited
- Diamond v. Colonial Life, 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (failure to timely object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation waives de novo review)
- United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424 (4th Cir. 2008) (failure to file timely objections precludes raising objections on appeal)
- Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239 (4th Cir. 2017) (objections to magistrate reports must be sufficiently specific to preserve issues for appeal)
- United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616 (4th Cir. 2007) (clarifies specificity required in objections to magistrate recommendations)