The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DION J. BROWN
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:23-cv-1200
v.
Hon. Robert J. Jonker
U.S. XPRESS, INC.
Defendant.
____________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Dion J. Brown worked for Variant—an internal division of the asset-based
trucking company Defendant U.S. Xpress, Inc.—from July to November 2022. (Paul Decl. ¶ 17
at PageID.71). In this action for lost wages, Brown alleges that U.S. Xpress violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act and tortiously interfered with his employment by falsely reporting that
Brown had been involved in an accident with one of its trucks. (ECF No. 1 at PageID.3). U.S.
Xpress moves to compel arbitration, asserting that Brown signed a mandatory Arbitration Program
Agreement at the time of his hiring. (ECF No. 10). On April 24, 2024, Magistrate Judge Green
filed a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grant U.S. Xpress’s Motion and
dismiss the case. (ECF No. 20 at PageID.137). The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation, which was duly served on the parties. No objections have been filed
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, (ECF No. 20), is
APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. The Court notes that
after Judge Green issued his Report and Recommendation, the Supreme Court held
in Smith v. Spizzirri that § 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires district courts
to stay an action referable to arbitration if a party requests one. 601 U.S. ____,
2024 WL 2193872, at *2 (2024). Neither has done so here, however, so the Court
retains discretion over whether to stay or dismiss this action.1 See Arabian Motors
Grp. W.L.L. v. Ford Motor Co., 19 F.4th 938, 942 (6th Cir. 2021); Davis v. Ally
Fin. Inc., No. 23-cv-22897, 2024 WL 2239144, at *4 & n.4 (D.N.J. May 17, 2024)
(interpreting Spizzirri as preserving district courts’ discretion to dismiss actions
subject to binding arbitration when no party requests a stay). Because the Court
anticipates that its only potential role moving forward will be to enforce an
arbitration award, dismissal is still appropriate.
2. Defendant U.S. Xpress’s Motion for to Compel Arbitration, (ECF No. 10), is
GRANTED.
3. This matter is TERMINATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 24, 2024 /s/ Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 U.S. Xpress requests “an order . . . dismissing all of the claims asserted by Plaintiff
against U.S. Xpress or, in the alternative, staying this action pending the arbitration of all claims.”
(ECF No. 10 at PageID.51). The Court interprets this language as requesting a stay only if the
Court declines to dismiss the action. Brown’s brief opposing U.S. Xpress’s motion does not take
a position on the issue.