Seals v. Sunrun Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Maryland
• Decided: December 5, 2024
• Docket: 8:24-cv-01534
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND _ PETER J, MESSITTE . 6500 CHERRYWOOD LANE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. GREENBELT, MARYLAND 20770 301-344-0632 _ MEMORANDUM

TO: Counsel of Record FROM: Judge Peter J. Messitte. RE: Reah Seals v. Sunrun Inc., No. 24-cv-1534 DATE: December A 2024

On October 16, 2024, Defendant Sunrun Inc. filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Ac- tion. ECF No. 27. Plaintiff Reah Seals responded by conceding that there is a binding agreement to arbitrate between the parties and instead asserted that Sunrun waived its right to enforce the agreement by engaging in the present litigation. ECF No. 30 at 1. Once an agreement to arbitrate is established, “[t]he ‘party resisting arbitration bears the burden, of proving that the claims at issue are unsuitable for arbitration.’” Roach vy. Navient Sols., Inc., 165 F. Supp. 3d 343, 347 (D. Md. 2015) (quoting Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79; 91 (2000)). Seals, therefore, must show that Sunrun “t[ook] action ‘inconsistent with an inten- tion to insist upon enforcing’ the arbitration clause.” Cain v. Midland Funding, LLC, 452 Md. 141, 154 (2017) (quoting BarGale Indus., Inc. v. Robert Realty Co,,275 Md. 638, 643 (1975)). Seals does not meet her burden of showing that Sunrun engaged in conduct amounting to such a waiver. This case has been pending for a relatively short amount of time, just over six months. □ When Sunrun answered the Complaint on July 5, 2024, it asserted its right to arbitrate. ECF No. 12 at 2, 6. Sunrun otherwise‘had “legitimate reason” for its limited participation in the present - litigation; namely, to comply with this Court’s Scheduling Order, the Federal Rules of Civil Pro- . cedure, and to preserve its rights against both Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendant Topside Solu- tions, LLC. See ARCO Nat'l Constr. LLC v, MCM Mgmt. Corp., 2024 WL 4041527, at *10 (D. Md. Sept. 4, 2024). ‘The Court does not view Sunrun’s efforts to settle the case—as directed by the Court—as conduct “inconsistent with an intention” to enforce the arbitration clause. Accordingly, Sunrun’s Motion - to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED and the action is STAYED pending arbitration. .

Despite the informal nature of this letter, it shall-constitute an Order of the Court and the Clerk is directed to docket it accordingly. ~

' -TER J. MESSITTE UNIT STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Ce: Counsel of Record . Court file .