Leavitt v. American Express National Bank

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: September 1, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00697
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 ABRAHAM LEAVITT, CASE NO. 23-cv-697 8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON JOINT STIPULATION TO 9 ARBITRATE CLAIMS AND STAY v. LAWSUIT AS TO AMERICAN EXPRESS 10 AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL 11 BANK; EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC; TRANS UNION LLC; 12 EXPERIAN INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., 13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Abraham Leavitt and Defendant 16 American Express National Bank’s (“American Express”) Joint Stipulation to Arbitrate Claims 17 And Stay Lawsuit as to American Express. Dkt. No. 28. Plaintiff and American Express have 18 agreed to arbitrate Plaintiff’s claims against American Express, and they request “that the lawsuit 19 be stayed as to American Express under 9 U.S.C. § 3 pending the outcome of the arbitration.” 20 Dkt. No. 28 at 1. The other Defendants in the case—Defendants Equifax Information Services 21 LLC, Trans Union LLC, and Experian Information Services, Inc. (the “Credit Reporting Agency 22 Defendants”)—have filed nothing in response to Plaintiff and American Express’s stipulation. 23 In general, “the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court 24 to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 1 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The Federal Arbitration 2 Act provides “[i]f any suit or proceeding be brought in any of the courts of the United States upon 3 any issue referable to arbitration . . . [the court] shall on application of one of the parties stay the

4 trial of the action until such arbitration has been had.” 9 U.S.C. § 3. The FAA’s stay-of-litigation 5 provision is mandatory and covers all matters within the scope of the arbitration agreement. 6 Congdon v. Uber Techs., Inc., 226 F. Supp. 3d 983, 990 (N.D. Cal. 2016). “It is, however, within 7 a district court’s discretion whether to stay, for considerations of economy and efficiency, an entire 8 action, including issues not arbitrable, pending arbitration.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 9 “The same holds true with respect to claims involving non-signatories to an arbitration agreement.” 10 Id. (citing Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 20 n.23 (1983) 11 (stating “it may be advisable to stay litigation among the non-arbitrating parties pending the 12 outcome of the arbitration. That decision is one left to the district court . . . as a matter of its

13 discretion to control its docket.”)). 14 The stipulation between Plaintiff and American Express constitutes the parties’ 15 agreement to arbitrate all Plaintiff’s claims against American Express. The stipulation is 16 therefore subject to 9 U.S.C. § 3 and its mandatory stay-of-litigation provision for matters within 17 the scope of Plaintiff and American Express’s agreement. But the stipulation was entered 18 between Plaintiff and American Express only. See Dkt. No. 28. And the parties have given the 19 Court no additional information to determine whether proceeding with piecemeal litigation 20 against the Credit Reporting Agency Defendants, who are not parties to an arbitration agreement 21 with Plaintiff, as far as the Court can tell, is a good use of judicial resources. This is especially 22 relevant when considering the interrelated nature of Plaintiff’s claims against the defendants, and

23 the likelihood that an arbitrator’s decision in the dispute between Plaintiff and American Express 24 will have a material impact on Plaintiff’s claims against the Credit Reporting Agency 1 Defendants. See Dkt. No. 1. As such, the Court is inclined to stay this entire action pending the 2 resolution of Plaintiff and American Express’s arbitration. 3 For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED:

4 1. Plaintiff and American Express’s Stipulation to Arbitrate Claims and Stay Lawsuit as 5 to American Express is renoted for consideration on September 19, 2023; 6 2. Plaintiff and the Credit Reporting Agency Defendants must meet and confer about the 7 effect of a litigation stay as to American Express and whether all proceedings should 8 be stayed during the pendency of any arbitration between Plaintiff and American 9 Express. Plaintiff and the Credit Reporting Agency Defendants must inform the Court 10 of their relative positions about staying all proceedings by no later than 11 September 19, 2023. 12 3. The deadlines in the Court’s initial scheduling order are stricken. Dkt. No. 29.

13 Dated this 1st day of September, 2023. 14 A 15 Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24