Eustolia Alvarez v. Marriott Resorts Hospitality Corporation

S.D. California

Eustolia Alvarez v. Marriott Resorts Hospitality Corporation

DecidedJune 5, 2026

Docket3:26-cv-02772

StatusUnknown

This text of Eustolia Alvarez v. Marriott Resorts Hospitality Corporation (Eustolia Alvarez v. Marriott Resorts Hospitality Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EUSTOLIA ALVAREZ, Case No. 26-cv-2772-BAS-MMP

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. COMPEL ARBITRATION (ECF No. 3) 14 MARRIOTT RESORTS HOSPITALITY

CORPORATION, 15 Defendant. 16

17 I. BACKGROUND 18 Presently before the Court is Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. (ECF No. 19 3.) Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion concedes: “Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant’s 20 Motion for Arbitration.” (ECF No. 4.) Nevertheless, Plaintiff requests that the Court delay 21 any order compelling arbitration and first send the parties to an Early Neutral Evaluation 22 (“ENE”) Conference to discuss settlement. (Id.) Defendant filed a reply, rejecting the 23 proposal to participate in an ENE Conference before arbitration. (ECF No. 5.) Defendant 24 affirms its non-opposed request to compel arbitration. (Id.) 25 II. ANALYSIS 26 The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) makes arbitration agreements “valid, 27 irrevocable, and enforceable.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. The FAA allows a party in the agreement to 28 “petition any United States district court . . . for an order directing that such arbitration 1 || proceed in the manner provided for in such agreement.” 9 U.S.C. § 4. The court’s role is 2 ||to enforce arbitration agreements “according to their terms.” Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. 3 || Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 67 (2010). 4 Here, given that Defendant opposes the request for an ENE Conference before 5 arbitration and Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant’s motion for arbitration, the Court 6 || enforces the arbitration agreement between the parties. 7 I. CONCLUSION 8 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. (ECF 9 || No. 11.) The Court ORDERS the parties to proceed to arbitration in the manner provided 10 || for in the Arbitration Agreement. See 9 U.S.C. § 4. The Court will STAY the case pending 11 || arbitration. 12 Lastly, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE 13 case. The decision to administratively close this case pending resolution of the 14 || arbitration does not have any jurisdictional effect. See Dees v. Billy, 394 F.3d 1290, 1294 15 Cir. 2005) (“[A] district court order staying judicial proceedings and compelling 16 || arbitration is not appealable even if accompanied by an administrative closing.”). 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ~ 19 || DATED: June 5, 2026 (yi. (Doha 0 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EUSTOLIA ALVAREZ, Case No. 26-cv-2772-BAS-MMP

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. COMPEL ARBITRATION (ECF No. 3) 14 MARRIOTT RESORTS HOSPITALITY

CORPORATION, 15 Defendant. 16

17 I. BACKGROUND 18 Presently before the Court is Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. (ECF No. 19 3.) Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion concedes: “Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant’s 20 Motion for Arbitration.” (ECF No. 4.) Nevertheless, Plaintiff requests that the Court delay 21 any order compelling arbitration and first send the parties to an Early Neutral Evaluation 22 (“ENE”) Conference to discuss settlement. (Id.) Defendant filed a reply, rejecting the 23 proposal to participate in an ENE Conference before arbitration. (ECF No. 5.) Defendant 24 affirms its non-opposed request to compel arbitration. (Id.) 25 II. ANALYSIS 26 The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) makes arbitration agreements “valid, 27 irrevocable, and enforceable.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. The FAA allows a party in the agreement to 28 “petition any United States district court . . . for an order directing that such arbitration 1 || proceed in the manner provided for in such agreement.” 9 U.S.C. § 4. The court’s role is 2 ||to enforce arbitration agreements “according to their terms.” Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. 3 || Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 67 (2010). 4 Here, given that Defendant opposes the request for an ENE Conference before 5 arbitration and Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant’s motion for arbitration, the Court 6 || enforces the arbitration agreement between the parties. 7 I. CONCLUSION 8 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. (ECF 9 || No. 11.) The Court ORDERS the parties to proceed to arbitration in the manner provided 10 || for in the Arbitration Agreement. See 9 U.S.C. § 4. The Court will STAY the case pending 11 || arbitration. 12 Lastly, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE 13 case. The decision to administratively close this case pending resolution of the 14 || arbitration does not have any jurisdictional effect. See Dees v. Billy, 394 F.3d 1290, 1294 15 Cir. 2005) (“[A] district court order staying judicial proceedings and compelling 16 || arbitration is not appealable even if accompanied by an administrative closing.”). 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ~ 19 || DATED: June 5, 2026 (yi. (Doha 0 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Eustolia Alvarez v. Marriott Resorts Hospitality Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eustolia-alvarez-v-marriott-resorts-hospitality-corporation-casd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack