R and C Oilfield Services LLC v. American Wind Transport Group, 45 F.4th 655

R&C Oilfield Services LLC (a two-employee family company) contracted with American Wind Transport; the contract included an AAA arbitration clause covering disputes.
R&C alleges American Wind withheld agreed detention payments, forcing R&C to sell its trucks and later haul for the trucks’ new owner.
R&C sued in federal court; American Wind moved to dismiss or compel arbitration. The district court compelled arbitration and stayed the case, rejecting R&C’s New Prime-based employment exemption argument.
R&C moved for reconsideration (raising unconscionability and New Prime issues); the district court denied reconsideration and the stay remained.
For 17 months R&C did not initiate arbitration and expressly told the district court it would not do so. American Wind moved under Rule 41(b) to dismiss for failure to prosecute.
The district court dismissed with prejudice after applying the Poulis factors (and noting dismissal is appropriate where a party willfully refuses to proceed); R&C appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the interlocutory order compelling arbitration merged into the final Rule 41(b) dismissal so it could be reviewed on appeal	R&C sought review of the order compelling arbitration and urged merger into the final judgment	American Wind argued R&C refused to seek interlocutory review or to arbitrate, so the arbitration order should not merge	The court held the arbitration order did not merge into the Rule 41(b) dismissal; appellate jurisdiction over the interlocutory order was lacking
Whether dismissal under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute was an abuse of discretion	R&C reasserted that the arbitration clause is unenforceable (New Prime) and complained arbitration would be futile/costly; did not initiate arbitration or seek immediate appellate review	American Wind argued R&C’s prolonged refusal to arbitrate and failure to prosecute justified dismissal under Poulis and court management powers	The court held dismissal was not an abuse of discretion and affirmed the Rule 41(b) dismissal (district court need not defer to lesser sanctions where plaintiff willfully refuses to proceed)

New Prime v. Oliveira, 139 S. Ct. 532 (Sup. Ct. 2019) (held certain transportation workers may be exempt from the FAA)
Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 1702 (Sup. Ct. 2017) (final-judgment rule and limits on piecemeal interlocutory appeals)
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (Sup. Ct. 1962) (courts’ inherent power to dismiss for failure to prosecute)
Poulis v. State Farm & Fire Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984) (six-factor test for dismissal for failure to prosecute)
Puleo v. Chase Bank USA, 605 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. 2010) (unconscionability can be a gateway question for arbitrability)
Spain v. Gallegos, 26 F.3d 439 (3d Cir. 1994) (a party may not refuse to proceed after an adverse ruling and then obtain relief on appeal from dismissal)
James v. McDonald's Corp., 417 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2005) (affirming dismissal where party refused to comply with order compelling arbitration)