Tillman v. Amblnz Services
- Rochon
- 1:22-cv-06854
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Tillman v. Amblnz Services, Judge Rochon stayed the case and compelled arbitration, denying Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion without prejudice.
Kareem A. Tillman must pursue his race-discrimination dispute with Amblnz Services in arbitration, and the federal case is stayed. Amblnz Services’ failure-to-state-a-claim motion was denied without prejudice.
What happened
Kareem A. Tillman sued his former employer, Amblnz Services, claiming that it discriminated against him because of his race. Tillman represented himself. Amblnz asked the court to dismiss the case and require arbitration under a written agreement.
Magistrate Judge Netburn recommended requiring arbitration and staying the case instead of dismissing it. The recommendation also said the request to dismiss for failure to state a claim should be denied without prejudice. Neither party objected within the required time.
Judge Rochon adopted the recommendation in its entirety. The court rejected Amblnz’s argument that the arbitration agreement removed the court’s authority to hear the case, found that the agreement covered Tillman’s claims, compelled arbitration, and stayed the case while arbitration proceeds. The court also denied Amblnz’s failure-to-state-a-claim motion without prejudice and denied Tillman permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Tillman v. Amblnz Services · No. 1:22-cv-06854
- Rochon
- Apr. 4, 2023
Background
Kareem A. Tillman, proceeding without a lawyer, sued his former employer, Amblnz Services, alleging race discrimination. The court referred dispositive motions—motions that could resolve the case—to Magistrate Judge Netburn for a report and recommendation.
Amblnz moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration. It argued that the parties’ arbitration agreement deprived the court of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court lacked authority to hear the dispute. Amblnz alternatively moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss for failure to state a legally sufficient claim.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Netburn concluded that an arbitration agreement does not remove the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Instead, the report addressed whether the dispute had to be arbitrated. It found that the parties had entered a valid written Mutual Dispute Resolution Agreement, that the arbitration clause was broad, and that it covered Tillman’s claims.
Because the Federal Arbitration Act applied, the report recommended compelling arbitration and staying the case while arbitration proceeded, rather than dismissing the case. It also recommended denying the Rule 12(b)(6) motion without prejudice because the arbitration issue should be addressed first.
District Court’s Review and Ruling
The parties had fourteen days to object to the report, but neither party filed an objection or requested more time. Judge Rochon therefore found that they had waived their right to object and to obtain appellate review. Even so, the court reviewed the complaint and report and found the report well reasoned and supported by the facts and law.
Judge Rochon adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court rejected Amblnz’s argument that the arbitration agreement deprived it of jurisdiction, compelled the parties to arbitrate, and stayed the case while they pursued arbitration. The court denied Amblnz’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion without prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion, stay the case, and mail Tillman a copy of the order.
The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying appellate filing fees.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.