Eder v. Northern Arizona Consolidated Fire District 1

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: September 30, 2019
• Docket: 3:19-cv-08101
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Wayne Eder, No. CV-19-8101-PCT-JJT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Northern Arizona Consolidated Fire District #1, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 At issue is Defendants Northern Arizona Consolidated Fire District #1 (“NACFD”), 16 Mike Collins, Erik Berg, Carl Hays, John Bryant, and Jim Bailey’s Motion to Dismiss and 17 Compel Arbitration (Doc. 30, Mot.), to which Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. 35) and 18 Defendants filed a Reply (Doc. 37). 19 The dispositive issue before the Court is whether Plaintiff’s employment agreement 20 (“the Agreement”) with NACFD is within the scope of Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration 21 Act. More specifically, the Court must determine whether the Agreement is one 22 “evidencing a transaction involving commerce.” See 9 U.S.C. § 2. The Supreme Court 23 interprets the scope of this provision as co-extensive with Congress’s power under the 24 Commerce Clause. Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., Inc. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, 274–75 25 (1995). In other words, quite broadly—the “functional equivalent of ‘affecting interstate 26 commerce.’” Id. 27 In their briefs, the parties submitted no evidence—save for a copy of the Agreement 28 itself—to support their respective positions on whether the Agreement affects interstate 1 | commerce. Defendants merely recite the job duties of the Fire Chief generally, as 2| enumerated in the Agreement. In doing so, Defendants argue that the Agreement “necessarily implicate[s] interstate commerce.” (Reply at 4.) Plaintiff states in a conclusory 4) fashion that “none of the duties identified in the Agreement involve interstate commerce.” (Resp. at 4.) 6 As Fire Chief, Plaintiff's duties included “arrang[ing] for the acquisition and 7 | purchase of equipment, supplies, and services necessary for the operation of NACFD” and 8| “hiring... any and all new full time, part time, volunteer, and reserve personnel.” (Mot., 9| Ex. A at3.) Contrary to Defendants’ position, these descriptions as listed do not necessarily 10 | implicate interstate commerce.! The standard is whether the Agreement affects interstate 11 | commerce “in fact.” Allied-Bruce, 513 U.S. at 282. The Court will not extrapolate from 12 | some general job descriptions that Plaintiff did in fact engage in interstate commerce as 13 | Fire Chief. 14 Accordingly, the Court requires the parties to submit additional evidence, in the 15 | form of an affidavit or otherwise, to shed light on the duties Plaintiff performed in fact, and whether those duties affected interstate commerce or not. 17 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED requiring Defendants to submit additional 18 | evidence, consistent with this Order, within 10 days of this Order. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED giving Plaintiff 7 days from the date of Defendants’ 20 | supplemental filing to submit his own additional evidence. 21 Dated this 27th day of September, 2019. CN 22 i . 23 Hon le Jof J. Tuchi Unifgd State#District Judge 24) — 25 | Defendants assert, without providing evidence, that this required Plaintiff to “recruit individuals from other states” and that the “plain terms of tthe] Employment 26 Agreement provide a list of transactions involving interstate commerce.” The Agreement does not state that Plaintiff had to hire people from outside Arizona or purchase equipment or Supplies from out-of-state. Defendants also point out that the job involved working and coordinating with out-of-state governments and agencies. Without more, the Court is 28) unable to conclude whether performing administrative duties with various governmental agencies qualifies as “interstate commerce.”

_2-