# Swift Transportation Co. v. United States District Court for District of Arizona

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · July 26, 2016 · 830 F.3d 913

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9835095

## Case

- **Full name:** In RE SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY INCORPORATED; Interstate Equipment Leasing Incorporated; Chad Killibrew; Jerry Moyes, Swift Transportation Company Incorporated; Interstate Equipment Leasing Incorporated; Chad Killibrew; Jerry Moyes, Petitioners, v. United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix, Respondent, Virginia Van Dusen, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated Persons; Joseph Sheer, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated Persons; Jose Motolina; Vickii Schwalm; Peter Wood, Real Parties in Interest
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 26, 2016
- **Citations:** 830 F.3d 913; 26 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1228; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13575; 2016 WL 4010054
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hurwitz
- **Judges:** Thomas, Ikuta, Hurwitz
- **Nature of suit:** Original Proceeding
- **Cited by:** 13 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9835095

## Opinion text

*918 HURWITZ, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
If this were a direct appeal from a district court order denying Swift’s motion to compel arbitration, I might agree with Judge Ikuta that the issue before the district court is one of law not requiring discovery. But, because the district judge has neither granted nor denied Swift’s motion, there is no appealable order. What is before us, rather, is a petition for mandamus.
“Mandamus is a drastic remedy and is to be used only in extraordinary circumstances.” Johnson v. Consumerinfo.com, Inc., 745 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Sherman, 581 F.2d 1358, 1361 (9th Cir. 1978)). Here, virtually nothing would be gained by granting the writ. The district court will shortly decide whether Van Dusen’s contract is one of employment under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 . If the court decides that it is not, it will order arbitration, mooting the mandamus petition. And, if the court finds that Van Du-sen’s contract is one of employment and denies the motion to compel arbitration, Swift can appeal. Id. § 16(a)(1)(B). Even assuming, as Judge Ikuta persuasively argues, that the issue before the district court could have been resolved without discovery, discovery is now complete. There is no extraordinary need to interrupt the proceedings below.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9835095. Public record. Not legal advice.