United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is defendant CVS Pharmacy Inc.'s motion
to dismiss. (ECF No. 7). Pro se plaintiff Richard
Daley filed a response (ECF No. 16), to which defendant replied
(ECF No. 18).
before the court is defendant's motion to compel
arbitration. (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff filed a response (ECF No.
17), to which defendant replied (ECF No. 18).
worked as a pharmacist for defendant. (ECF No. 1 at 11).
During the week of October 5, 2017, defendant introduced an
arbitration policy, which it attached to its motion as
“Exhibit A.” (ECF No. 7-3). The arbitration
policy requires participating employees and CVS to each waive
their rights to bring employment-related claims in court, and
instead submit any disputes to binding arbitration. (ECF No.
7-1) (“Declaration of Robert Bailey”).
arbitration policy contains a description of “Claims
Covered by This Policy.” The provision states, in
relevant part, “Covered Claims also include disputes
arising out of or relating to the validity, enforceability or
breach of this Policy, except as provided in the section
below regarding the Class Action Waiver.” (ECF No. 7-3
November 23, 2016, plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit
against defendant. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges that
defendant's hiring and firing practices discriminated
against him and violated the ADEA and ADA. Id.
substantive law governs the question of arbitrability.
See Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc., 175 F.3d 716, 719
(9th Cir. 1999) (citing Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v.
Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983);
Republic of Nicaragua v. Standard Fruit Co., 937
F.2d 469, 474-75 (9th Cir. 1991). Because the consulting
agreement at issue is a “contract evidencing a
transaction involving commerce, ” it is subject to the
Federal Arbitration Act. See 9 U.S.C. § 2; Chiron
Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126,
1130 (9th Cir. 2000).
Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) reflects
Congress' intent to provide for the enforcement of
arbitration agreements within the full reach of the commerce
clause. See Republic of Nicaragua, 937 F.2d at 475
(citing Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483, 490 (1987)).
The FAA embodies a clear federal policy in favor of
arbitration. “[A]ny doubts concerning the scope of
arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of
arbitration.” Simula, 175 F.3d at 719 (quoting
Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 24-25).
standard for demonstrating arbitrability is not high.
Simula, 175 F.3d at 719. The Supreme Court has held
that the FAA leaves no place for the exercise of discretion
by a district court, but instead mandates that district
courts direct the parties to proceed to arbitration on issues
as to which an arbitration agreement has been signed. See
Dean Witter Reynolds v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 218 (1985);
Simula, 175 F.3d at 719. Such agreements are to be
rigorously enforced. Simula, 175 F.3d at 719; see
also Dean Witter, 470 U.S. at 221.
the federal policy favoring arbitration, arbitration is a
“matter of contract” and no party may be required
to arbitrate “any dispute which he has not agreed so to
submit.” Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.,
537 U.S. 79 (2002) (quoting United Steelworkers of Am. V.
Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582 (1960)).
When determining whether a party should be compelled to
arbitrate claims: courts engage in a two-step process.
Chiron, 207 F.3d at 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). The court
must determine: (1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate
exists, and if it does; (2) whether the agreement encompasses
the dispute at issue. Id.
asserts that a binding arbitration agreement exists between
the parties and the agreement delegates the question of
arbitrability to the arbitrator. In the alternative,
defendant asserts that it has demonstrated the existence of
the threshold requirements for arbitrability under the
arbitration agreement may create an agreement between the
parties to submit the threshold question of arbitrability to
an arbitrator instead of a court. Rent-A-Center, W., Inc.
v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 70 (“An agreement to
arbitrate a gateway issue is simply an additional antecedent
agreement that the party seeking arbitration asks the court
to enforce, and the FAA operates on this additional
arbitration agreement just as it does on any other.”).
In such cases, unless the agreement to submit ...