Jones v. Americare Systems, Inc.

W.D. Tennessee

Jones v. Americare Systems, Inc.

DecidedJanuary 2, 2024

Docket2:23-cv-02743

StatusUnknown

This text of Jones v. Americare Systems, Inc. (Jones v. Americare Systems, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. Americare Systems, Inc., (W.D. Tenn. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION MAMIE JONES, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) No. 2:23-cv-02743-SHL-atc AMERICARE SYSTEMS, INC., ) d/b/a PARKWAY COVE SENIOR LIVING ) BY AMERICARE, ) Defendant. ) ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION TO STAY

Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion to [Stay and] Proceed to Mediation/Arbitration Pursuant to the Parties’ Agreement, filed January 2, 2024. (ECF No. 11.) Because the motion conflates arbitration with mediation and because this dispute is still in its infancy with no Court-imposed deadlines staring down the Parties, the motion is DENIED. The Court is pleased to hear that the Parties are confident in their ability to work out this dispute in short order via mediation/arbitration. However, those two forms of alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) are far from identical. While a “Dispute Resolution Agreement” purportedly applies to this case (ECF No. 11 at PageID 33), there is no further detail provided on whether a specific arbitration clause is on point that binds the Parties. A litigant cannot be compelled to arbitrate a dispute unless she has validly agreed to do so in a binding contract. GGNSC Louisville St. Matthews LLC v. Badgett, 728 F. App'x 436, 440 (6th Cir. 2018). Thus, before a court orders arbitration, it must determine whether “a valid agreement to arbitrate exists.” Id. (quoting Mazera v. Varsity Ford Mgmt. Servs., LLC, 565 F.3d 997, 1001 (6th Cir. 2009)). As it stands, this motion is much too vague for the Court to determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act might be implicated. If it is mediation that the Parties are after, they would soon find out, or ideally should already know, that parties are in fact required to take a swing at mediation within this District. (See ECF No. 3; LR Appendix D.1.) So, on all fronts, the Parties can and should mediate away. Nothing is standing in the Parties’ way from filing a stipulation of dismissal after

completing a successful ADR. However, as of now, the Defendant is still on the clock for serving a responsive pleading in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a). The motion to stay is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of January, 2024. s/ Sheryl H. Lipman SHERYL H. LIPMAN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION MAMIE JONES, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) No. 2:23-cv-02743-SHL-atc AMERICARE SYSTEMS, INC., ) d/b/a PARKWAY COVE SENIOR LIVING ) BY AMERICARE, ) Defendant. ) ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION TO STAY

Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion to [Stay and] Proceed to Mediation/Arbitration Pursuant to the Parties’ Agreement, filed January 2, 2024. (ECF No. 11.) Because the motion conflates arbitration with mediation and because this dispute is still in its infancy with no Court-imposed deadlines staring down the Parties, the motion is DENIED. The Court is pleased to hear that the Parties are confident in their ability to work out this dispute in short order via mediation/arbitration. However, those two forms of alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) are far from identical. While a “Dispute Resolution Agreement” purportedly applies to this case (ECF No. 11 at PageID 33), there is no further detail provided on whether a specific arbitration clause is on point that binds the Parties. A litigant cannot be compelled to arbitrate a dispute unless she has validly agreed to do so in a binding contract. GGNSC Louisville St. Matthews LLC v. Badgett, 728 F. App'x 436, 440 (6th Cir. 2018). Thus, before a court orders arbitration, it must determine whether “a valid agreement to arbitrate exists.” Id. (quoting Mazera v. Varsity Ford Mgmt. Servs., LLC, 565 F.3d 997, 1001 (6th Cir. 2009)). As it stands, this motion is much too vague for the Court to determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act might be implicated. If it is mediation that the Parties are after, they would soon find out, or ideally should already know, that parties are in fact required to take a swing at mediation within this District. (See ECF No. 3; LR Appendix D.1.) So, on all fronts, the Parties can and should mediate away. Nothing is standing in the Parties’ way from filing a stipulation of dismissal after

completing a successful ADR. However, as of now, the Defendant is still on the clock for serving a responsive pleading in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a). The motion to stay is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of January, 2024. s/ Sheryl H. Lipman SHERYL H. LIPMAN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jones v. Americare Systems, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-americare-systems-inc-tnwd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack