BAXLEY v. ADT SOLAR LLC

M.D. Georgia

BAXLEY v. ADT SOLAR LLC

DecidedJuly 7, 2025

Docket7:24-cv-00130

StatusUnknown

This text of BAXLEY v. ADT SOLAR LLC (BAXLEY v. ADT SOLAR LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

BAXLEY v. ADT SOLAR LLC, (M.D. Ga. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION

HAL BAXLEY, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : CASE NO.: 7:24-CV-130 (WLS) : ADT SOLAR LLC, : : Defendant. : : ORDER Before the Court is Defendant ADT Solar LLC’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. 14), filed on June 17, 2025. Therein, Defendant moves the Court to compel the arbitration of the Parties’ dispute pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and the Parties’ written agreement. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s claims are subject to a binding arbitration clause which requires the Parties to arbitrate “any dispute arising out of or relating to any aspect of the [Parties’] relationship[.]” (Doc. 14-1 ¶ 6.2). “Arbitration is a matter of contract; therefore, a party cannot be forced to submit to arbitration if he has not agreed to do so.” Order Homes, LLC v. Iverson, 685 S.E.2d 304, 310 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). In accordance with the Parties’ “Home Improvement Contract” (Doc. 14-1), which was signed by Plaintiff, Defendant ADT Solar elects binding arbitration. Further, on July 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. 18) to Defendant’s Motion agreeing that arbitration of his claims is mandatory under the terms of the Parties’ contract. Plaintiff further suggests that the Court should grant Defendant’s Motion. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. 14) is GRANTED. Additionally, the Court finds that staying the instant case is appropriate. See Bender v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 971 F.2d 698, 699 (11th Cir. 1992) (citing 9 U.S.C. § 4) (noting that a stay pending arbitration is an appropriate resolution when a claim is subject to a binding arbitration agreement). The Court therefore STAYS this case pending arbitration. The Parties are ORDERED to file a joint status report no later than Monday, October 6, 2025, informing the Court of the status of the arbitration proceedings. SO ORDERED, this 7th day of July 2025. /s/ W. Louis Sands W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION

HAL BAXLEY, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : CASE NO.: 7:24-CV-130 (WLS) : ADT SOLAR LLC, : : Defendant. : : ORDER Before the Court is Defendant ADT Solar LLC’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. 14), filed on June 17, 2025. Therein, Defendant moves the Court to compel the arbitration of the Parties’ dispute pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and the Parties’ written agreement. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s claims are subject to a binding arbitration clause which requires the Parties to arbitrate “any dispute arising out of or relating to any aspect of the [Parties’] relationship[.]” (Doc. 14-1 ¶ 6.2). “Arbitration is a matter of contract; therefore, a party cannot be forced to submit to arbitration if he has not agreed to do so.” Order Homes, LLC v. Iverson, 685 S.E.2d 304, 310 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). In accordance with the Parties’ “Home Improvement Contract” (Doc. 14-1), which was signed by Plaintiff, Defendant ADT Solar elects binding arbitration. Further, on July 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. 18) to Defendant’s Motion agreeing that arbitration of his claims is mandatory under the terms of the Parties’ contract. Plaintiff further suggests that the Court should grant Defendant’s Motion. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. 14) is GRANTED. Additionally, the Court finds that staying the instant case is appropriate. See Bender v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 971 F.2d 698, 699 (11th Cir. 1992) (citing 9 U.S.C. § 4) (noting that a stay pending arbitration is an appropriate resolution when a claim is subject to a binding arbitration agreement). The Court therefore STAYS this case pending arbitration. The Parties are ORDERED to file a joint status report no later than Monday, October 6, 2025, informing the Court of the status of the arbitration proceedings. SO ORDERED, this 7th day of July 2025. /s/ W. Louis Sands W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

BAXLEY v. ADT SOLAR LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baxley-v-adt-solar-llc-gamd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack