Gent v. Adler Giersch PS

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: March 12, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01922
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 JACOB GENT, No. 2:23-cv-01922-JHC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION 11 v. TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND FOR A STAY OF THIS ACTION 12 ADLER GIERSCH, P.S., a Washington Professional Service Corporation, 13 Defendant. 14

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and 16

17 for a Stay of this Action. Dkt. # 6. The Court has reviewed the materials submitted in

18 support of and in opposition to the motion, the rest of the case file, and the governing law.

19 Being fully advised, the Court GRANTS the motion in part and DENIES it in part.

20 Plaintiff asserts claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 21 et seq., the Washington Law Against Discrimination Act, chapter 49.62 RCW, and RCW 22 Chapter 49.52. These claims, and the allegations underlying them, arise out of, and are 23

24 connected with, multiple written agreements between the parties, including the following: the

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND FOR STAY – Page 1 No. 2:23-cv-01922-JHC 1 Stock Purchase and Shareholder Agreement (PSA), the Fourth Amendment to the PSA, the

2 2021 Compensation Agreement, and the 2022 Compensation Agreement (collectively, the

3 Agreements), Accordingly, all of Plaintiff’s claims are subject to mandatory arbitration under 4 the substantially similar arbitration clauses set forth in each of the Agreements. See Epic Sys. 5 Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. 497, 505 (2018); Stein v. Geonerco, Inc., 105 Wash. App. 41, 44, 17 6

7 P.3d 1266 (2001).

8 But under Walters v. A.A.A. Waterproofing, Inc., 151 Wash. App. 316, 321-25, 211

9 P.3d 454 (2009), the two-way fee shifting provisions in the Agreements are “unconscionable”

10 with respect to the statutory claims. And the Agreements contain severability provisions.

11 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that: 12 (1) Plaintiff is directed to submit all of his claims in this matter to binding 13

arbitration in accordance with the terms of the arbitration clause that appears in the 14

15 Agreements.

16 (2) The two-way fee shifting provisions are severed with respect to the statutory

17 claims asserted by Plaintiff.

18 (3) This Action is stayed, effectively immediately, pending completion of binding 19 arbitration in accordance with Paragraph (1) above, the entry of a final award by the 20 Arbitrator, and the presentation of such final award to this Court for confirmation, vacation, 21

modification, or correction. 9 U.S.C. § 9; RCW 7.04A.220. 22

23 /

24 /

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND FOR STAY – Page 2 No. 2:23-cv-01922-JHC 1 DATED this 12™ day of March, 2024. 2 3 C]ok 4. Char 4 JOHN H. CHUN 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND FOR STAY - Page 3 No. 2:23-cv-01922-JHC