Opinion
Civil Action No. 21-cv-01086-CMA-NYW
2021-07-22
Shawna ARAGON, Plaintiff, v. U-HAUL CO OF COLORADO, d/b/a U-Haul Co of East Central Colorado, Defendant.
Claire E. Hunter, Hkm Employment Attorneys LLP, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff. Jamie H. Steiner, Husch Blackwell LLP, Denver, CO, for Defendant.
Claire E. Hunter, Hkm Employment Attorneys LLP, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff.
Jamie H. Steiner, Husch Blackwell LLP, Denver, CO, for Defendant.
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE RECOMMENDATION
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO, United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation and Order of United States Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang. (Doc. # 20). Judge Wang orders that the Parties’ Joint Motion to Stay Pending Arbitration (Doc. # 18) is granted in part and denied in part, and she recommends that the case be administratively closed pending arbitration. Neither party objects to Judge Wang's recommendation.
Judge Wang advised the parties that specific written objections were due within 14 days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (Doc. #33, p. 54 n. 22). Neither party filed a timely objection to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation.
1"In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate [judge's] report under any standard it deems appropriate." Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) ; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985) ("It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings").
Applying this standard, I am satisfied that Judge Wang's Recommendation is sound and that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Judge Wang's Amended Recommendation (Doc. # 20), is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an order of this Court. The case is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED pending arbitration pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2, with leave to reopen for good cause. The parties are ORDERED to file a joint status report on October 4, 2021, and every 90 days thereafter until this case is finally closed. The parties may file a motion to reopen this case or a motion to dismiss this action within 14 days of entry of the arbiter's order.
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ORDER
Nina Y. Wang, United States Magistrate Judge
This matter comes before the court on the Parties’ Joint Motion to Stay Pending Arbitration (or "Motion to Stay") [#18, filed July 5, 2021], which has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Order Referring Case dated June 7, 2021 [#11], and the Memorandum dated July 6, 2021 [#19]. Upon careful review of the Motion to Stay, the docket, and applicable law, this court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Motion to Stay, and respectfully RECOMMENDS that this matter be ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED pending arbitration.
LEGAL STANDARD
Administrative closure pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2 may be appropriate when a case would otherwise be stayed for an indefinite amount of time, subject to reopening for good cause. See, e.g., Hartford Life and Accident Ins. Co. v. Nickal , No. 17-cv-02556-MSK-MJW, 2018 WL 1173150, at *1 (D. Colo. Mar. 6, 2018) (finding administrative closure appropriate because it was unclear when a parallel criminal proceeding would be adjudicated). It is a way for the court to manage its docket by "shelv[ing] pending, but dormant, cases[ ]" without a final adjudication. See Lehman v. Revolution Portfolio LLC , 166 F.3d 389, 392 (1st Cir. 1999). Demonstrating good cause to reopen an administratively closed matter is not onerous; rather, "good cause to reopen a case exists where the parties wish to litigate the remaining issues that have become ripe for review." Patterson v. Santini , 631 F. App'x 531, 534 (10th Cir. 2015) (quotations omitted); see also Frederick v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. , No. 11-CV-02306-RM-KLM, 2015 WL 1499662, at *1 (D. Colo. Mar. 27, 2015) ("Here, Defendant seeks a determination of the parties’ rights and claims. Thus, good cause exists to reopen the matter." (internal citations omitted)).
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff Shawna Aragon ("Plaintiff" or "Ms. Aragon") and Defendant U-Haul CO of Colorado, d/b/a U-Haul Co of East Central Colorado ("Defendant" or "U-Haul") state in the instant Motion to Stay that the Parties "agree to arbitrate this matter ... consistent with the agreement to arbitrate" that "exists between Plaintiff and Defendant," and request that "the instant litigation be stayed," "all hearings and deadlines be vacated, and the case be administratively closed pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2, pending the conclusion of arbitration between the parties." [#18 at 1–2]. Given the indefinite timing of the forthcoming arbitration hearing and the potential that the arbitration could resolve all outstanding issues between the Parties, administrative closure pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2 is appropriate, subject to reopening for good cause. See, e.g., Santich v. VCG Holding Corp. , No. 17-CV-00631-RM-MEH, 2020 WL 1529182, at *3 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2020), reconsideration denied , 2020 WL 2848143 (D. Colo. June 2, 2020) (holding that an administrative closure is more appropriate than a stay pending arbitration); Prosser v. Whayne & Sons Enter., Inc. , No. 14-CV-01764-KLM, 2015 WL 128534, at *2 (D. Colo. Jan. 8, 2015) ("[A]lthough a stay of proceedings in this matter is warranted, the circumstances presented here make this case eminently more suited for administrative closure, given the fact that arbitration should resolve all outstanding issues[.]").
Indeed, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has expressly recognized that "[u]se of the administrative-closure mechanism allows district courts to remove from their pending cases suits which are temporarily active elsewhere (such as before an arbitration panel) or stayed (such as where a bankruptcy is pending)." Patterson , 631 F. App'x at 534 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Given that Plaintiff has agreed to participate in the arbitration of her claims against Defendant, and the duration and outcome of the arbitration are unknown, this case presents similarly appropriate circumstances justifying administrative closure subject to reopening for good cause under the Local Rule.
Because Ms. Aragon has agreed to participate in arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement with Defendant, this court respectfully RECOMMENDS that this matter be ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2, with leave to reopen for good cause shown, including but not limited to confirmation of an arbitral award.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, IT IS ORDERED that:
(1) The Parties’ Joint Motion to Stay Pending Arbitration [#18] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART .
In addition, this court respectfully RECOMMENDS that:
(1) This case be ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2, with leave to reopen for good cause shown;1
(2) The Parties be granted leave to file a request to reopen, or a motion to dismiss, this action within 14 days of the entry of the arbiter's order; and
(3) In the event that the arbitration remains pending, the Parties be ordered to FILE a Joint Status Report on October 4, 2021 , and every 90 days thereafter.