1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT SEATTLE 6 DENITA JONES, 7 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00967-BAT 8 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND 9 SEQUOIA EQUITIES, INC., STAY PROCEEDINGS 10 Defendant. 11 Before the Court is Defendant Sequoia Equities, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and 12 Stay Proceedings. Dkt. 15. Defendant also seeks attorneys’ fees and costs. For the reasons set 13 forth herein, the Court grants the motion. 14 BACKGROUND 15 This is Plaintiff’s second action with the same substantive claims arising out of her 16 former employment with Defendant, which claims are subject to the parties’ Arbitration 17 Agreement. In the first action, which was also originally filed in King County and removed to 18 this Court, the parties stipulated to a dismissal without prejudice in accordance with their 19 Arbitration Agreement. The Court dismissed the action over two years ago, on May 17, 2022. 20 See Denita Jones v. Sequoia Equities, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00626-RAJ, Order at Dkt. 9. 21 After the first case was dismissed, counsel for the parties exchanged emails discussing 22 potential arbitrators for about ten months – the last email between counsel was over a year ago, 23 on April 2, 2023. Dkt. 8, Declaration of Adam T. Pankratz. Plaintiff failed to respond to one arbitrator option for three months (December 12, 2022 through March 13, 2023). After the parties finally agreed on an arbitrator, it was learned the proposed individual was no longer doing arbitrations. On April 2, 2023, Defendant proposed two additional arbitrators. Plaintiff did not respond. After a year during which apparently no action was taken to prosecute Plaintiff’s

claims, Plaintiff filed this duplicate action on May 22, 2024– again, bringing it first in King County Superior Court. Plaintiff recognizes the parties’ Arbitration Agreement and includes a request for arbitration in her Complaint. Dkt. 1-1. DISCUSSION A. Motion to Compel Arbitration A court may stay a lawsuit containing issues subject to arbitration under a written arbitration agreement until the arbitration “has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement.” 9 U.S.C. § 3. The Washington Uniform Arbitration Act similarly states that judicial proceedings “shall” be stayed pending resolution of a motion to compel arbitration and then, if the motion is granted, pending the arbitration’s conclusion. RCW 7.04A.070(5)-(6).

There is no question Plaintiff’s claims are subject to the parties’ Arbitration Agreement and Plaintiff does not object to Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay these proceedings. Dkt. 7. B. Award of Attorney Fees Defendant seeks its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, which authorizes the imposition of costs and attorneys’ fees against any attorney who “multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously.” “Sanctions pursuant to section 1927 must be supported by a finding of subjective bad faith.” Blixseth v. Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC, 796 F.3d 1004, 1007 (9th Cir. 2015). “Bad faith is present when an attorney knowingly or recklessly raises a frivolous argument or argues a meritorious claim for the purpose of harassing an opponent.” Id. Plaintiff argues Defendant cannot demonstrate “bad faith.” Dkt. 15 at 2. However, Plaintiff conceded her claims were arbitrable and agreed to dismiss her claims with this Court,

and Plaintiff’s counsel initially worked with Defendant’s counsel to agree on an arbitrator. For reasons unknown and unexplained, Plaintiff’s counsel delayed initiating any action for months, failed to respond to Defendant’s counsel regarding potential arbitrators, and filed the same action and claims again in state court. Plaintiff’s counsel states “[a]t most, counsel lost contact and failed to follow up with each other on an acceptable mediator.” Id. And, with a “looming statute of limitations, Plaintiff refiled the lawsuit, and this time specifically sought relief in the form of a declaratory order for an arbitration.” Id. Plaintiff also argues “Defense Counsel could have contacted Plaintiff’s counsel and sought a stipulated motion to order arbitration and stay proceedings, which would have been easily agreed upon.” Id. (emphasis added). Conversely, Plaintiff’s counsel could have contacted

Defendant’s counsel before filing this duplicate action, to agree on an arbitrator to properly pursue Plaintiff’s claims through arbitration. Plaintiff’s counsel provides no reasonable explanation for failing to do so. Moreover, Plaintiff’s counsel knew when they filed the second lawsuit, Defendant would have to incur additional expenses to remove the duplicate lawsuit to this Court and file a second motion to enforce the parties’ Arbitration Agreement. Plaintiff also contends there has been no delay or disruption of litigation or hampering of a court order. However, this Court dismissed the prior lawsuit based on the parties’ stipulation to pursue arbitration and is now dealing with a duplicate lawsuit which should have been arbitrated over two years ago. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings is GRANTED; 2) This case is STAYED until February 24, 2025. The parties shall provide a status report to the Court by January 24, 2025.

3) Defendant is awarded its attorneys’ fees and costs. Defendant may file a motion seeking those fees and costs by August 23, 2024. 4) The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to the parties.

DATED this 6th day of August, 2024. A

BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge