Where defendants have moved to compel arbitration of all claims, the motion should be allowed with respect to two of the defendants but denied as to a third defendant.
“Plaintiff Jeffrey T. Hoxworth brings this lawsuit against his former employer, SDI Consulting, LLC; one of its members, JAE Consulting LLC; and JAE’s owner, Jeremy Erard. Hoxworth raises claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§1001–1461, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§201–219, and state law, alleging that Defendants failed to transfer contributions to his 401(k) account, failed to timely pay his wages, failed to pay him overtime, and retaliated against him when he complained about these issues. Defendants jointly move to compel arbitration of all claims or, in the alternative, to dismiss certain claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim (ECF No. 8).
“The Court first addresses Defendant’s jurisdictional argument, and finds that Hoxworth has standing to sue. Next, it finds that Hoxworth’s claims against JAE and Erard, but not his claims against SDI, must be arbitrated. Finally, it concludes that Hoxworth has stated a claim against SDI for retaliation under ERISA. Accordingly, the Court will compel arbitration of Hoxworth’s claims against JAE and Erard and stay those claims pending arbitration. Additionally, because Hoxworth’s claims against SDI are intertwined with those against JAE and Erard, the Court will stay those claims as well. …
“Defendants raise three arguments in their motion: (1) Hoxworth lacks standing to bring his ERISA claims, (2) Hoxworth’s claims are subject to arbitration, and (3) Hoxworth has failed to state a retaliation claim. The Court finds that (1) Hoxworth has standing, (2) Hoxworth’s claims against JAE and Erard, but not those against SDI, are subject to arbitration, and (3) Hoxworth has stated a retaliation claim against SDI. …
“Moving to the motion to compel, Defendants argue that the Operating Agreement requires Hoxworth’s claims to be arbitrated. As explained below, the Court finds that (1) the arbitration clause is operational because it is not overridden by the forum selection clauses in the Employment and Redemption Agreements; (2) Hoxworth’s claims against JAE must be arbitrated, but his argument that Erard and SDI cannot enforce the arbitration clause is for the Court to resolve; and (3) Erard can enforce the arbitration clause under principles of agency law, but SDI cannot. …
“For the reasons set out above, the Court will grant the motion to compel arbitration in part, compel arbitration regarding Hoxworth’s claims against JAE and Erard, and stay all claims pending arbitration. The Court will also deny the motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”