Pickering v. URBANTUS, LLC
827 F. Supp. 2d 1010
S.D. Iowa2011Background
- Plaintiffs, as Attorneys-in-Fact for Polly Stevens, entered into a Memory Care Occupancy Agreement with Emeritus at Urbandale (Emeritus) on July 16, 2009.
- An Arbitration Agreement, not attached to the Occupancy Agreement, also signed by Pickering, bound to arbitrate disputes with Emeritus at Urbandale and related entities.
- Urbantus, LLC is the parent/owner entity of Emeritus at Urbandale; Emeritus Corporation is the owner of Urbantus, with operations in multiple states.
- Ms. Stevens' fall on March 1, 2011 gave rise to tort claims against Defendants in Polk County, Iowa.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds and moved to compel arbitration and stay proceedings under the FAA.
- The Arbitration Agreement states it applies to disputes arising from provision of services and even to non-signatories and affiliates, governed by the FAA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FAA applies to the arbitration clause. | Plaintiffs challenge commerce nexus for Urbantus; FAA applicability contested. | Arbitration clause involves interstate commerce and falls under FAA. | FAA applies; arbitration clause is within FAA and governs the dispute. |
| Whether Emeritus at Urbandale/trade-name entity is bound by the Arbitration Agreement. | Arbitration applies only to signatories; Urbantus/Emeritus not clearly bound. | Emeritus operates Emeritus at Urbandale; trade-name does not defeat enforceability; Arb. binds related entities. | Emeritus (doing business as Emeritus at Urbandale) is bound; Urbantus qualifies as affiliate/parties covered by the arbitration clause. |
| Whether the claims fall within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement. | Claims arise from fall/negligence, not within arbitration scope. | Arbitration covers any tort or contract claims arising from care/services under the agreements. | Claims fall within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement. |
| Whether the case should be dismissed or stayed pending arbitration. | FAA dismissal is appropriate under circuit practice. | FAA generally allows only a stay, not dismissal, pending arbitration. | Court stays proceedings pending arbitration; does not dismiss the case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., Inc. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265 (1995) (liberal federal policy favoring arbitration; FAA applies in diversity cases)
- Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) (FAA stays arbitration under strong federal policy)
- Faber v. Menard, Inc., 367 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir. 2004) (FAA preempts state statutes disfavoring arbitration)
- Jones v. GGNSC Pierre LLC, 684 F. Supp. 2d 1161 (D. S. D. 2010) (arbitration enforceability in nursing home contexts; interstate commerce connection)
- Green v. SuperShuttle Int'l., Inc., 653 F.3d 766 (8th Cir. 2011) (discretion to stay vs. dismiss pending arbitration discussed)
- West Liberty Foods, L.L.C. v. Moroni Feed Co., 753 F. Supp. 2d 881 (S.D. Iowa 2010) (stay of proceedings pending arbitration under FAA)