Hewitt v. St. Louis Rams Partnership
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1095
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Todd Hewitt sued the St. Louis Rams entities alleging age discrimination under the Missouri Human Rights Act.
- Respondents moved to compel arbitration under an arbitration agreement and requested dismissal or a stay pending arbitration.
- On January 8, 2013 the trial court ordered arbitration and stayed the proceedings. The court invited rehearing if a party sought dismissal to permit appeal.
- Hewitt moved to amend, asking the court to dismiss (so he could immediately appeal) and to enjoin arbitration pending appeal.
- On January 17, 2013 the court granted Hewitt’s request to dismiss his claim to permit appellate review but refused to stay arbitration, saying the arbitration order remained in full force.
- The appellate court found the January 8 and January 17 orders internally inconsistent (simultaneously dismissing the action and ordering arbitration) and reversed the January 17 supplemental judgment, reinstating the January 8 order compelling arbitration and staying the court action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court may dismiss a court action while ordering arbitration to proceed | Hewitt argued the court should dismiss the action (allowing immediate appeal of arbitration question) and still let arbitration be stayed pending appeal | Respondents argued arbitration should proceed and the court could compel arbitration and maintain its prior stay or enforce arbitration | Court held a trial court must stay its proceedings (not dismiss) when compelling arbitration; the supplemental dismissal was internally inconsistent and reversed |
| Whether a court must stay proceedings when it compels arbitration under Mo. statute | Hewitt sought dismissal to enable immediate appellate review rather than statutory stay | Respondents relied on court’s right to order arbitration and proceed with it without dismissal | Court held Section 435.355 mandates a stay when arbitration is ordered; courts should not dismiss but stay the action pending arbitration |
Key Cases Cited
- In re N.H., 155 S.W.3d 820 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005) (judgment that is internally inconsistent cannot stand)
- Robinson v. Advance Loans II, LLC, 290 S.W.3d 751 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (statutory construction presumes each word has meaning)
- Teson v. Director of Revenue, 937 S.W.2d 195 (Mo. banc 1996) (use of "shall" in statute denotes mandatory duty)
- State ex rel. Baumruk v. Belt, 964 S.W.2d 443 (Mo. banc 1998) (statutory language requiring mandatory action interpreted strictly)
- Mueller v. Hopkins & Howard, PC, 5 S.W.3d 182 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999) (proper procedure is stay, not dismissal, when arbitration compelled)
- Burris v. American Heritage Homes, LLC, 197 S.W.3d 613 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006) (appellate review may follow arbitration or be sought via extraordinary writ)
- Deiab v. Shaw, 138 S.W.3d 741 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003) (arbitration results can render issues moot and appeal options post-arbitration are available)