You're viewing Docket Item 11 from the case MILLER v. CLUB DEMONSTRATIONS SERVICES, INC. et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 3:13-cv-02627-MLC-LHG Document 11 Filed 07/11/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 117

NOT FOR PUBLICATION



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-2627 (MLC)

O P I N I O N



JENNIFER MILLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLUB DEMONSTRATIONS SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant.





THE PLAINTIFF, Jennifer Miller, brings the action against her

former employer, the defendant, Club Demonstrations Services, Inc.

(“CDSI”). (See dkt. entry no. 1, Notice of Removal, Ex. A, Compl.)

Miller alleges that CDSI violated her rights under the New Jersey

Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. § 34:10-1, et seq.

(“CEPA”). (See id. at 1-3.)



CDSI now moves to compel arbitration of the underlying

dispute. (See dkt. entry no. 7, Notice of Mot.; see also dkt.

entry no. 7-1, Br. in Supp. at 6-16.)1 Insofar as CDSI seeks to

compel arbitration, Miller does not oppose the Motion. (See dkt.

entry no. 9-4, Opp’n Br. at 2, 3.) For good cause appearing, the

Motion will thus be granted insofar as CDSI seeks to compel



1 CDSI also moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and CEPA’s one-year statute of
limitations. (See Notice of Mot.; Br. in Supp. at 1-6.) However,
insofar as CDSI earlier sought that form of relief, CDSI has
withdrawn that request. (See dkt. entry no. 10, Reply Br. at 1.)

Case 3:13-cv-02627-MLC-LHG Document 11 Filed 07/11/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 118

arbitration of the dispute underlying the Complaint. The Court

will order the parties to proceed to arbitration, as set forth by

the terms of their arbitration agreement. (See dkt. entry no. 7-2,

Epstein Certification, Ex. B, Arbitration Agreement.)



THE COURT will stay the action “until such arbitration has

been had in accordance with the terms of the” Arbitration

Agreement. 9 U.S.C. § 3; see Quilloin v. Tenet HealthSys. Phila.,

Inc., 673 F.3d 221, 227 n.2 (3d Cir. 2012) (noting that “a stay,

rather than a dismissal, is the required course of action when

compelling arbitration”); Lloyd v. HOVENSA, LLC, 369 F.3d 263, 268-

69 (3d Cir. 2004).

THE COURT will enter a separate Order.

























s/ Mary L. Cooper
MARY L. COOPER
United States District Judge










Dated:

July 11, 2013




2