Thornton v. Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 7, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01483
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 BRIAN ANTHONY THORNTON, CASE NO. C21-1483-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 HILTON WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS, INC., et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and 16 dismiss (Dkt. No. 12). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant 17 record, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion for the reasons explained herein. 18 Plaintiff Brian Thornton filed this Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) action alleging 19 that Defendants Protek Consulting, LLC (“Protek”), Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc. (“Hilton”), 20 Hilton employee Philip Black, and 2020 I. T. Services, Inc. (“IT Services,” and with Protek, 21 Hilton, and Black, “Defendants”) wrongfully withheld $249,600 in wages. (Dkt. No. 4 at 5–6.) 22 In moving to compel arbitration and dismiss, Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s sole employment 23 relationship was with Protek and that Protek’s W2 Hourly Employment Agreement 24 (“Agreement”), signed by Plaintiff, requires arbitration of his FLSA claims. (See Dkt. No. 12 at 25 2; see also Dkt. No. 13–1 at 2 (agreement requiring “mandatory and binding arbitration” for “any 26 1 . . . claim or controversy” other than those involving the agreement’s conflict, non-disclosure, 2 and non-compete provisions).) Plaintiff has not filed papers opposing Defendants’ motion. 3 This Court “ha[s] an obligation to give a liberal construction to the filings of pro se 4 litigants.” Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013). However, pro se litigants 5 must “follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” See Briones v. Riviera 6 Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation and internal quotations omitted). 7 And under this Court’s Local Rules, litigants opposing a motion must file papers within the time 8 prescribed. LCR 7(d). A failure to do so amounts to an admission that the motion has merits. 9 LCR 7(b)(2). 10 Because Plaintiff failed to file papers opposing Defendants’ motion, the Court concludes 11 that the motion has merit. The Court, therefore, finds that Plaintiff has no contractual or 12 employment relationship with any of the Defendants other than Protek, that the Agreement’s 13 arbitration provision is valid, and that it encompasses the dispute at issue. Accordingly, the Court 14 GRANTS Defendants’ motion (Dkt. No. 12) and ORDERS Plaintiff’s complaint dismissed 15 without prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. 16 17 DATED this 7th day of February 2022. A 18 19 20 John C. Coughenour 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26