Case Information
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION OHN R USSELL , Plaintiff,
v. No. 4:24-cv-01114-P
A MANDA ICH ET AL .,
Defendant.
ORDER
On June 2, 2025, the United States Magistrate Judge issued Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation (FCR) in this case. ECF
No. 54. The FCR recommended the Court deny Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss, compel Plaintiff ’s claims to arbitration, and stay the litigation
of those claims in the meantime. Plaintiff filed objections to the FCR.
ECF Nos. 57 & 61. The Court accordingly conducted a review.
As detailed below, the Court will ADOPT the reasoning in the FCR,
OVERRULE DENY Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss, STAY ’s claims, and COMPEL them to arbitration.
BACKGROUND Plaintiff worked for Defendant Richemont North America, Inc.
(RNA). Defendant Amanda Rich was his manager. While employed
there, he signed a dispute resolution agreement that included an
arbitration clause. In 2023, Plaintiff ’s employment ended; according to
him, he was forced to resign “under severe duress.” Plaintiff attempted
to rescind his resignation, but RNA rejected the rescission. He later
signed an Agreement and General Release with RNA. After consulting
an attorney, Plaintiff attempted to revoke the release. RNA paid
Plaintiff the consideration described in the Release and did not
recognize his rescission of the release. Plaintiff sued RNA and Rich,
bringing claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and
other claims. Defendants moved to dismiss or compel arbitration.
LEGAL STANDARD A Magistrate Judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations for a dispositive matter are reviewed if a party timely objects.
F ED . R. C IV . P. 72(b)(3). The district court may then accept, reject, or
modify the recommendations or findings in whole or in part. Id.
ANALYSIS
A. Review of Magistrate Judge’s Recommendations
Insofar as the Parties did not object to portions of the FCR, the district court reviewed it for plain error. See Serrano v. Customs and
Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Prot. , 975 F.3d 488, 502 (5th
Cir. 2020). Finding none, the Court hereby the reasoning of
the Magistrate Judge as to the denial of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
and the propriety of staying Plaintiff ’s claims pending arbitration.
B. ’s Objections
Plaintiff raises around ten objections to the FCR. The following objections are new arguments raised for the first time in his objections:
(1) the arbitration was not initiated after manager consultation and HR
escalation, which were conditions precedent to arbitration; (2) RNA
limits participation in arbitration to current RNA employees, of which
Plaintiff is not one; (3) RNA constructively discharged Plaintiff, making
a purported “condition precedent” impossible; (4) RNA waived
arbitration by litigating the merits of the case; (5) RNA provided no fresh
consideration in exchange for Plaintiff ’s agreement to arbitrate,
rendering the agreement unenforceable; (6) Plaintiff was fraudulently
induced into signing the arbitration agreement; and (7) equitable
principles bar enforcement of the arbitration agreement. Those
arguments are not properly before the Court. See Firefighters’
Retirement Sys. v. EisnerAmper, LLP , 898 F.3d 553, 559 (5th Cir. 2018)
(“Plaintiffs forfeited their judicial estoppel argument by raising it for the
first time in their objection to the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation”). Those objections are therefore
That leaves three objections, of which the Court can make quick work. First , Plaintiff objects that a Court must first determine the
arbitrability of a dispute. ECF No. 57 at 2. This is a strange objection,
considering that the FCR did examine the arbitrability of the disputes
and determined they were arbitrable. This objection is OVERRULED .
Second , Plaintiff argues that “even if the internal steps [prior to
arbitration] were merely ‘recommended,’ [RNA’s] own conduct . . . made
completion impossible.” ECF No. 57 at 4. But if the steps were merely
recommended, then they were not necessary, and any actions RNA took
to make those steps impossible are therefore irrelevant. This objection
is OVERRULED as well. Third , Plaintiff objects that the FCR “does not
reflect a meaningful examination” of the alleged flaws in the formation
of the contract to arbitrate. ECF No. 61 at 5. The FCR stated that
“Plaintiff ’s arguments are insufficient to show that Plaintiff did not
validly, voluntarily, and with informed consent enter into and execute
the Dispute Resolution Agreement.” ECF No. 54 at 12. While it is true
that the Magistrate Judge did not engage in a lengthy discussion of
Plaintiff ’s attacks on the arbitration agreement, those attacks did not
warrant a treatise. Defendants provided sufficient evidence to prove the
existence of a valid, signed agreement to arbitrate; Plaintiff ’s attempts
to poke holes in that agreement are futile and insincere. Plaintiff is not
entitled to a discovery fishing expedition into metadata and system logs
in the hope that he might find some way to undermine the arbitration
agreement. This final objection is therefore .
CONCLUSION Having conducted a review of the FCR, the Court the reasoning in the Magistrate Judge’s FCR, DENIES the Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss, OVERRULES COMPELS ’s claims to arbitration, and STAYS all pending deadlines
relating to those claims in the meantime. The Court further ORDERS
the Parties to file regular reports on the status of arbitration every 90
days, starting August 21, 2025
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION EGINALEA K EMP Plaintiff, v. No. 4:23-cv-00841-P R EGIONS B ANKET AL Defendants. ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion forLeave to File Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 18. Having considered the Motion and applicable docket entries, the Court GRANTS the Motion. ______________________________________________ Mark T. Pittman U NITED S TATE S D ISTRICT UDGE 23rd day of June 2025.
[1] Plaintiff briefed the Magistrate Judge on issues (5) and (6) regarding the Agreement and General Release—but not the arbitration agreement.
[2] For example, the fact that his printed name was on the line for the date and vice versa is of no consequence. See ECF No. 37 at 16.