The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
_ FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:21-CV-155-D
RONIQUE DE SA, et al., )
Plaintiffs, ;
v. ORDER
RPS HOLDINGS, LLC, et al., ) .
Defendants.
On April 1, 2021, Ronique De Sa (“plaintiff or “De Sa”), also known as Ronique Debora
Swinson, filed a putative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and
accompanying regulations. See [D.E. 1]. On May 4, 2021, Michelle Bravo, Tamara Cozart, and
Courmey Kempf filed consent to sue forms. See [D.E. 10]. On May 3, July 16, and September 22,
2021, defendants moved to compel arbitration and attached the relevant arbitration agreements for
De Sa, Bravo, Cozart, and Kempf. See [D.E. 9, 21, 38]. De Sa, Bravo, and Cozart consent to
arbitration. See [D.E. 16, 27]. Because defendants initially did not believe that Kempf had ever
performed at defendants’ club, defendants did not immediately seek to compel arbitration ‘with
Kempf. See [D.E. 37] 2. After receiving more information from plaintiffs’ counsel about Kempf,
defendants learned Kempf’s true identity and appearance and located Kempf’s arbitration agreement.
See id. at 2-3; [D.E. 37-1] Defendants then sought to amend their answer and to compel Kempf to
arbitrate. See [D.E. 38].
In the interests of justice, the court grants defendants? motion to amend. See Fed. R. Civ. P
15(a)(2); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Gulf Guaranty Life Ins. Co. v. Conn. Gen. Life
Co., 304 F.3d 476, 485-88 (Sth Cir. 2002); Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503,
509-11 (4th Cir. 1986); [D.E. 34] 2. Defendants did not act in bad faith or with undue delay, and
Kempf will not be prejudiced by complying with her arbitration agreement.
The record demonstrates: (1) the existence of a dispute between the defendants and De Sa,
Bravo, Cozart, and Kempf; (2) written arbitration agreements purporting to cover the dispute and
that are enforceable under general contract law; (3) the relationship of the transaction, as evidenced
by the arbitration agreements, to interstate commerce; and (4) Kempf’s refusal to arbitrate the
dispute. Thus, the court grants defendants’ motions to compel arbitration. See, e.g., Henry Schein
Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524, 527-31 (2019); Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S.
Ct. 1612, 1621-32 (2018); Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., 570 U.S. 228, 232-39 (2013);
Marmet Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Brown, 565 U.S. 530, 531-33 (2012) (per curiam); CompuCredit
Corp. v. Greenwood, 565 U.S. 95, 98 (2012); AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333,
344-52 (201 1); Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc., 539 U.S. 52, 56-58 (2003) (per curiam); Green Tree
Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 91-92 (2000); Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.,
500 U.S. 20, 24-26 (1991); Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 218 (1985); Moses
H. Cone Mem’! Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-28 (1983); Galloway v. Santander
Consumer USA, Inc., 819 F.3d 79, 89-90 (4th Cir. 2016); Santoro v. Accenture Fed. Servs., LLC,
748 F.3d 217, 221-24 (4th Cir. 2014); Muriithi v. Shuttle Express, Inc., 712 F.3d 173, 177-85 □□□□□
Cir. 2013); Rota-McLarty v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., 700 F.3d 690, 697-98 (4th Cir. 2012);
_ Adkins v. Labor Ready, Inc., 303 F.3d 496, 500-07 (4th Cir. 2002); Newman v. First Montauk Fin.
. 2
Corp., No. 7:08-CV-116-D, 2010 WL 2933281, at *7-8 (EDN.C. July 23, 2010) (unpublished).
In sum, the court GRANTS defendants’ motion for leave to file an amended response [D.E.
37] and defendants’ motion for leave to file an amended responsive pleading seeking enforcement
of the arbitration agreement with Courtney Kempf [D.E. 38]. The court also GRANTS defendants’
motions to compel arbitration [D.E. 9, 21, 38] with plaintiffs Ronique De Sa, Michelle Bravo,
Tamara Cozart, and Courtney Kempf. The court STAYS the action pending arbitration of these four
plaintiffs’ claims. The parties shall notify this court upon the conclusion of the arbitration. Not later
than January 28, 2022, defendants shall notify the court whether Ashley Fickenworth and Kimberlyn
Richards have arbitration agreements. Given that Kempf shall arbitrate her claims, the court
DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Kempf’s motion for conditional certification [D.E. 24].
SO ORDERED. This 3 _ day of January, 2022.
aon
J S C. DEVER II
United States District Judge
3