STEVENSON
v.
FUNNY TIME, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this Fair Labor Standards Act case, the District Court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiff's motion to stay, directing the parties to arbitration pursuant to their contract based on the Supreme Court's holding in Smith v. Spizzirri.
The court denied the motion to dismiss and granted the motion to stay, directing the parties to arbitrate in accordance with their contract, following the Supreme Court's holding in Smith v. Spizzirri that dismissal of an action pending arbitration is improper where the claimant requests a stay.
[1] A court should grant a stay of an action pending arbitration when a claimant requests a stay and the parties' contract contains an arbitration clause.
[2] Dismissal of an action pending arbitration is improper when the claimant requests a stay of the action.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“dismissal of action pending arbitration is improper where the claimant requests a stay of the action”
Establishes the legal standard from Smith v. Spizzirri that governs whether a case should be dismissed or stayed when an arbitration clause is invoked
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNatalie Stevenson brought suit on behalf of herself and others similarly situated against Funny Time, Inc. (doing business as Gold Club Pompano) and M…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Arbitration Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before this Court on two related motions: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 24, and Plaintiff's Motion to Stay, ECF No. 26. The Honorable William P. Dimitrouleas referred these Motions to the undersigned for a report and recommendation. ECF Nos. 25, 27; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); S.D. Fla. Mag. R. 1. Having considered the Motions, the responses, the argument of counsel at an August 22, 2024 hearing, and being otherwise advised in the premises, the Court hereby recommends for the reasons outlined below that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be DENIED, and that Plaintiff's Motion to Stay be GRANTED.
This action was brought by Plaintiff under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. Defendants initially moved to have the action dismissed based both on service issues and on an arbitration clause contained within the Parties' contract. Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Stay the case, agreeing that the case
should go to arbitration but arguing that a stay would be appropriate under the circumstances. See Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472 (2024) (holding that dismissal of action pending arbitration is improper where the claimant requests a stay of the action). Defendant responded, acknowledging the holding in Spizzirri. At the hearing, the Parties agreed that the appropriate step at this stage would be to stay the case and send the Parties to arbitration.
RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that: Plaintiff's Motion to Stay, ECF No. 26, should be GRANTED. This matter should be stayed, and the Parties should be required to arbitrate in accordance with the Parties' contract. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 24, should be DENIED.
Within seven (7) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, any Party may serve and file written objections to any of the above findings and recommendations as provided by the Local Rules for this district. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); S.D. Fla. Mag. R. 4(b). The Parties are hereby notified that a failure to timely object waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report and Recommendation. 11th Cir. R. 3–1 (2016); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
2024. DONE and SUBMITTED at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 22nd day of August
Pak mint
PATRICK M. HUNT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: The Honorable William P. Dimitrouleas All counsel of record
2