The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALICIA R. DIXON, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
D.R. HORTON, INC., ET AL. NO. 22-01005-BAJ-SDJ
RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant D.R. Horton, Inc. — Gulf Coast’s (“D.R. Horton”)
Motion To Stay Pending Arbitration (Doc. 15). D.R. Horton’s motion is
unopposed. For reasons set forth below, D.R. Horton’s motion will be granted, and
this action will be stayed, pending arbitration.
I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND
D.R. Horton and Plaintiffs executed a contract of sale for the purchase of a
Lafayette Parish residence on April 10, 2014. (Doc. 15-3). The same parties re-
executed the contract on June 6, 2014. (Doc. 15-2).
The contract includes an arbitration clause which covers “any claim,
controversy or dispute of any kind,” and requires that the parties “agree to resolve
such dispute by binding arbitration under the Uniform Arbitration Act and the
Federal Arbitration Act.”! (Doc. 15-2, p. 10, § 14). In addition to signing and re-
full arbitration clause is as follows:
Buyer and Seller agree that if any claim, controversy or dispute
of any kind arises between Buyer and Seller, whether arising for
a tort, the Contract, any breach of the Contract in any way
related to this transaction, including but not limited to claims or
disputes arising under the Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law and/or the terms of the express
limited warranty referenced in Paragraph 13 of the Contract,
THE BUYER AND SELLER AGREE TO RESOLVE SUCH
signing the contract, Plaintiffs specifically affixed their initials alongside the section
describing the arbitration clause in both copies of the contract. (See Docs. 15-3, p. 2,
14; 15-2, p. 10, § 14).
Further, between 2009 and 2021, D.R. Horton and Defendant Bell Mechanical
Services, LLC, executed three separate independent contractor agreements. (Doc. 7-
5, pp. 17-50). In those contracts, the parties agreed that “[Bell Mechanical] shall be
bound by any arbitration procedures and rules accepted by [D.R. Horton] where
necessary to facilitate resolution in a single forum.” (Doc. 7-5, pp. 21, 30, 48).
Il. ANALYSIS
A. Standard
The Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16 (“FAA”), expresses a strong
federal policy in favor of enforcing arbitration agreements. See, e.g., Dean Witter
Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 218, 217-18 (1985); Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465
U.S. 1, 10, (1984); Safer v. Nelson Fin. Group Inc., 422 F.3d 289, 294 (5th Cir. 2005).
DISPUTE BY BINDING ARBITRATION UNDER THE
UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT AND THE FEDERAL
ARBITRATION ACT under the direction and procedures
established by the AAA “Construction Industry Arbitration
Rules” except as specifically modified herein or dictated by
applicable statutes including the Uniform Arbitration Act and/or
the Federal Arbitration Act. Any dispute shall be submitted for
determination by an arbitrator or a board of three (8)
arbitrators, as agreed upon between Buyer and Seller, to be
selected for each controversy. The decision of the arbitrator(s)
shall be in writing and signed by such arbitrator(s), or a majority
of them, and shall be final and binding upon the parties. Hach
party shall bear the fees and expenses of counsel, witnesses and
employees of such party, and any other costs and expenses
incurred for the benefit of such party. All other fees and expenses
shall be divided equally between Buyer and Seller.
(Doc. 15-2, p. 10, | 14).
Most relevant here, Section 3 of the FAA states:
If any suit or proceeding be brought in any of the courts of the United
States upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in
writing for such arbitration, the court in which such suit is pending,
upon being satisfied that the issue involved in such suit or proceeding is
referable to arbitration under such an agreement, shall on application
of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has
been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement, providing the
applicant for the stay is not in default in proceeding with such
arbitration.
9 U.S.C. § 3. “Section 3...is broad enough to permit the stay of an entire action even
though only some of the issues in the lawsuit are referable to arbitration.” Cybertek,
Inc. v. Bentley Sys., Inc., 182 F. Supp. 2d 864, 871 (D. Neb. 2002) (discussing
authorities); see also Miller v. Aaacon Auto Transp., Inc., 545 F.2d 1019, 1020—21 (5th
Cir. 1977) (“Once being satisfied .. . ‘that the issue involved in such suit or proceeding
is referable to arbitration under such an agreement,’ the district court seems to be
required by [Section 3] to, upon application, ‘stay the trial of the action until such
arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement, providing
the applicant for the stay is not in default in proceeding with such arbitration.”).
The Court applies a two-step analysis to assess whether an issue is referrable
to arbitration. Sherer v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 548 F.3d 379, 381 (5th Cir. 2008).
First, the Court determines whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate the
particular dispute. Id. This first step, itself, is divided into two questions: “(1) is there
a valid agreement to arbitrate the claims and (2) does the dispute in question fall
within the scope of that arbitration agreement.” Sherer, 548 F.3d at 381. “[A]ny
doubts concerning the scope of an arbitration agreement should be resolved in favor
of arbitration.” Safer, 422 F.3d at 294.
Second, upon being satisfied that the parties have agreed to arbitrate a
dispute, the Court asks whether “any federal statute or policy renders the claims
nonarbitrable.” Sherer, 548 F.3d at 381 (quoting Wash. Mut. Fin. Group, LLC □□□
Bailey, 364 F.3d 260, 263 (5th Cir. 2004)).
The Supreme Court instructs that the FAA “leaves no place for the exercise of
discretion by a district court, but instead mandates that district courts shall direct
the parties to proceed to arbitration on issues as to which an arbitration agreement
has been signed.” Dean Witter, 470 U.S. at 218.
B. Discussion
At the first step of the analysis, Plaintiffs and D.R. Horton indisputably agreed
to arbitrate claims arising during the term of the contract of sale. (See Docs. 15-3, p.
2, § 14; 15-2, p. 10, § 14). Further, at least some of Plaintiffs’ claims against
Defendants fall squarely within the arbitration clause’s scope. Plaintiffs allege breach
of contract, negligence, redhibition, and claims attacking the validity and
enforceability of the contract and arbitration clause, among other claims against
Defendants, (Doc. 5-1, pp. 12-34). These allegations clearly fall within the types of
potential causes of action contemplated by the agreed-upon arbitration clause. (See
Doc. 15-2, p. 10, { 14).
In addition, as it relates to Plaintiffs’ attacks on the validity of the contract and
arbitration clause, pursuant to the FAA, the contractual incorporation of the AAA
Rules constitutes a per se delegation of all issues relating to the merits, validity, or
enforceability of an arbitration clause to the arbitrator. See, e.g., Edwards v.
Doordash, Inc., 888 F.3d 738, 746 (5th Cir. 2018); Petrofac, Inc. v. DynMcDermott
Petroleum Operations Co., 687 F.3d 671, 675 (5th Cir. 2012); Arnold v. Homeaway,
Inc., 890 F.3d 546, 553 (5th Cir. 2018).
The only remaining question is whether a federal statute or policy renders
these issues nonarbitrable. The Court is not aware of any such statute or policy, and
no party has identified any.
In sum, the Court determines that the above-captioned matter is appropriately
stayed, pending arbitration pursuant to the parties’ contractual agreements.
Ill. CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant D.R. Horton’s Motion To Stay Pending
Arbitration (Doc. 15) be and is hereby GRANTED, and that this action be and is
hereby STAYED pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 3, pending arbitration of Plaintiffs’ claims
against Defendants, pursuant to the parties’ contractual agreements.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall, throughout the duration
of this stay, jointly file a notice with the Court every 90 days informing the Court of
the status of the arbitration.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the parties resolve this matter through
arbitration, the parties shall immediately file a notice of settlement consistent with
the requirements of Local Rule 16(c), and/or a stipulation of dismissal consistent with
the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)G@i).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending motions in the above-
captioned matter be and are hereby TERMINATED without prejudice to the
movants’ rights to re-assert their arguments (as appropriate) pending completion of
arbitration and reinstatement of this case to the Court’s active docket.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall
ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this case for statistical purposes.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this Fey of February, 2023
JUDGE BRIAN —
UNITED STATE ISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA