Eustolia Alvarez v. Marriott Resorts Hospitality Corporation

S.D. California

Eustolia Alvarez v. Marriott Resorts Hospitality Corporation

District Court, S.D. California·Decided June 5, 2026·No. 3:26-cv-02772·Unknown

Opinion

EUSTOLIA ALVAREZ, Case No. 26-cv-2772-BAS-MMP

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO v. COMPEL ARBITRATION (ECF No. 3)

CORPORATION, Defendant.

Presently before the Court is Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion concedes: “Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant’s Motion for Arbitration.” (ECF No. 4.) Nevertheless, Plaintiff requests that the Court delay any order compelling arbitration and first send the parties to an Early Neutral Evaluation (“ENE”) Conference to discuss settlement. (Id.) Defendant filed a reply, rejecting the proposal to participate in an ENE Conference before arbitration. (ECF No. 5.) Defendant affirms its non-opposed request to compel arbitration. (Id.) The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) makes arbitration agreements “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. The FAA allows a party in the agreement to “petition any United States district court . . . for an order directing that such arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in such agreement.” 9 U.S.C. § 4. The court’s role is to enforce arbitration agreements “according to their terms.” Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 67 (2010). Here, given that Defendant opposes the request for an ENE Conference before arbitration and Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant’s motion for arbitration, the Court enforces the arbitration agreement between the parties. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. (ECF No. 11.) The Court ORDERS the parties to proceed to arbitration in the manner provided for in the Arbitration Agreement. See 9 U.S.C. § 4. The Court will STAY the case pending arbitration. Lastly, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE case. The decision to administratively close this case pending resolution of the arbitration does not have any jurisdictional effect. See Dees v. Billy, 394 F.3d 1290, 1294 Cir. 2005) (“[A] district court order staying judicial proceedings and compelling arbitration is not appealable even if accompanied by an administrative closing.”). ~ DATED: June 5, 2026 (yi. (Doha H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court

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

EUSTOLIA ALVAREZ, Case No. 26-cv-2772-BAS-MMP

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO v. COMPEL ARBITRATION (ECF No. 3)

CORPORATION, Defendant.

Presently before the Court is Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion concedes: “Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant’s Motion for Arbitration.” (ECF No. 4.) Nevertheless, Plaintiff requests that the Court delay any order compelling arbitration and first send the parties to an Early Neutral Evaluation (“ENE”) Conference to discuss settlement. (Id.) Defendant filed a reply, rejecting the proposal to participate in an ENE Conference before arbitration. (ECF No. 5.) Defendant affirms its non-opposed request to compel arbitration. (Id.) The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) makes arbitration agreements “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. The FAA allows a party in the agreement to “petition any United States district court . . . for an order directing that such arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in such agreement.” 9 U.S.C. § 4. The court’s role is to enforce arbitration agreements “according to their terms.” Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 67 (2010). Here, given that Defendant opposes the request for an ENE Conference before arbitration and Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant’s motion for arbitration, the Court enforces the arbitration agreement between the parties. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. (ECF No. 11.) The Court ORDERS the parties to proceed to arbitration in the manner provided for in the Arbitration Agreement. See 9 U.S.C. § 4. The Court will STAY the case pending arbitration. Lastly, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE case. The decision to administratively close this case pending resolution of the arbitration does not have any jurisdictional effect. See Dees v. Billy, 394 F.3d 1290, 1294 Cir. 2005) (“[A] district court order staying judicial proceedings and compelling arbitration is not appealable even if accompanied by an administrative closing.”). ~ DATED: June 5, 2026 (yi. (Doha H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court

Eustolia Alvarez v. Marriott Resorts Hospitality Corporation, (S.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Eustolia Alvarez v. Marriott Resorts Hospitality Corporation (Eustolia Alvarez v. Marriott Resorts Hospitality Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related