Goodwin v. Cellular Sales

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: August 20, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01176
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 Antonio Goodwin, Case No. 2:23-cv-01176-RFB-BNW

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 Cellular Sales,

8 Defendant.

9 10 Last September, the district judge assigned to this case granted Defendant’s motion to 11 compel arbitration, and he stayed the case pending resolution of the arbitration proceedings. ECF 12 No. 37. In the past two months, pro se Plaintiff has filed ten motions related to vacating the 13 arbitration proceedings due to purported evidence of fraud, corruption, and arbitrator misconduct. 14 See ECF Nos. 38, 41, 45, 46, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56. In response, Defendant moved to strike 15 Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration (ECF No. 40), to strike two of Plaintiff’s motions to 16 supplement (ECF No. 50), and for sanctions (ECF No. 47). For the reasons discussed below, this 17 Court denies all thirteen motions and warns Plaintiff that future filings of this kind will likely 18 result in sanctions. 19 I. LEGAL STANDARD 20 District courts’ authority regarding arbitration “is generally limited to decisions that 21 bookend the arbitration itself,” such as compelling arbitration where there is a valid arbitration 22 agreement. In re Sussex, 781 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 2015). “[The Federal Arbitration Act] 23 does not suggest that a court could otherwise intervene before a final award is made.” Id. at 1071– 24 72. This is because allowing court intervention into arbitration proceedings would frustrate the 25 very purpose of arbitration—the “disposition of disputes without the expense and delay of 26 extended court proceedings.” Aerojet-Gen. Corp. v. Am. Arb. Ass’n, 478 F.2d 248, 251 (9th Cir. 27 1973). And although the Ninth Circuit has carved out a narrow exception to this rule for “the 1 most extreme cases,” it has yet to affirm a district court’s decision to intervene mid-arbitration. 2 See id.; see also In re Sussex, 781 F.3d at 1075. 3 II. DISCUSSION 4 This Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration (ECF No. 38) for three 5 reasons. First, this action is stayed pending the completion of arbitration. See ECF No. 37; see 6 also Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936) (“The power to stay proceedings is 7 incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its 8 docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”). Plaintiff’s 9 motion runs counter to this stay as arbitration has not concluded. Second, Plaintiff has filed no 10 points and authorities in support of his motion, which constitutes a consent to the denial of the 11 motion under this district’s local rules. See Local Rule 7-2(d) (“The failure of a moving party to 12 file points and authorities in support of the motion constitutes a consent to the denial of the 13 motion.”). Third, as discussed above, binding case law does not favor intervening in a pending 14 arbitration. Id.; see also Millmen Loc. 550, United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., AFL- 15 CIO v. Wells Exterior Trim, 828 F.2d 1373, 1375 (9th Cir. 1987). 16 Given this Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration, it denies 17 Defendant’s motions to strike (ECF Nos. 40 and 47) and Plaintiff’s related filings (ECF Nos. 41, 18 45, 46, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56) as moot. As for Defendant’s motion for sanctions (ECF No. 47), 19 this Court, at this time, denies the motion in its discretion.. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c) (stating that 20 courts “may” impose sanctions under this rule); see also Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 21 U.S. 384, 407 (1990) (“Indeed, because the district court has broad discretion to impose Rule 11 22 sanctions, appeals of such sanctions may frequently be frivolous.”). However, Plaintiff is on 23 notice that no further filings of this kind will be allowed in this case until arbitration is completed. 24 Failure to comply may result in sanctions. See Local Rule 11-8(e). 25 III. CONCLUSION 26 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for an Early Vacate in the Arbitration Mediation 27 Case (ECF No. 38) is DENIED. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s related motions (ECF Nos. 41, 45, 46, ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Counter Motion to Strike (ECF No. 40) 2 || and Motion to Strike (ECF No. 50) are DENIED as moot. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 47) is 4 || DENIED without prejudice. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff continues to file in this case before 6 || arbitration is completed, he may be subject to sanctions. See Local Rule 11-8(e). 7 8 DATED: August 20, 2025 9 10 Ling late bain B DA WEKSLER □ 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28