Jernard Griggs v. S.G.E. Management, L.L.C.
905 F.3d 835
5th Cir.2018Background
- Griggs joined Ignite as an Independent Associate (IA) on March 22, 2012 and agreed to Ignite’s Policies & Procedures, which contained an arbitration clause covering disputes between IAs and between IAs and Ignite and delegated arbitrability to the arbitrator.
- Griggs sued Ignite, Stream, affiliated entities, and several IAs alleging RICO-based claims and filed a class action in federal court in May 2015.
- Defendants moved to compel arbitration; the magistrate and district court concluded the arbitration agreement was valid, that arbitrability was for the arbitrator to decide, and they compelled arbitration and stayed the case.
- Over a year after the stay, Griggs refused to submit the dispute to arbitration and told the court he would not pursue arbitration and would litigate or appeal if dismissed.
- The district court dismissed the case without prejudice for want of prosecution; Griggs appealed challenging jurisdiction and the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this court has appellate jurisdiction over the dismissal | Griggs contended the dismissal was not voluntary and thus the order dismissing the case to compel arbitration is appealable | Defendants argued the dismissal was effectively a voluntary Rule 41(a) dismissal and not an appealable final decision | Court held it has jurisdiction: the district court’s dismissal sending the case to arbitration ended litigation and is a final appealable decision under the FAA and Green Tree; Griggs’s filings did not amount to a Rule 41(a) notice |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in dismissing for failure to prosecute | Griggs argued he would litigate or appeal and did not intend to voluntarily dismiss; dismissal was improper or too harsh | Defendants argued Griggs intentionally refused to comply with the order to arbitrate and the court could dismiss under Rule 41(b) | Court held dismissal without prejudice for want of prosecution was within the district court’s discretion given Griggs’s persistent refusal to arbitrate and intentional delay |
Key Cases Cited
- Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (Sup. Ct. 2000) (order compelling arbitration and dismissing claims is a final, appealable decision under the FAA)
- Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 1702 (Sup. Ct. 2017) (rejects voluntary-dismissal tactic to gain appellate review of interlocutory orders; protects final-judgment rule)
- Torres v. S.G.E. Mgmt., L.L.C., 838 F.3d 629 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (describing Ignite/Stream IA program and earlier arbitration-enforceability issues)
- Keena v. Groupon, Inc., 886 F.3d 360 (4th Cir. 2018) (district-court dismissal with prejudice following stay did not create appealable final decision where plaintiff voluntarily dismissed to seek review)