Bacon v. Divi Carina Bay Resort
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX MARK A. BACON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 2010-071 ) ) GRAPETREE SHORES, INC., d/b/a ) DIVI CARINA BAY HOTEL ) ) Defendant. ) _________________________________________ ) Attorneys: Kye Walker, Esq., St. Croix, U.S.V.I. For the Plaintiff Ryan C. Meade, Esq., Miami, FL Leslie A. Kelley, Esq., St. Croix, U.S.V.I. For the Defendants MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Lewis, Chief Judge THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant’s “Motion for Declaratory Judgment that Plaintiff’s Demand for Arbitration was Filed Beyond the Statute of Limitations.” (Dkt. No. 19). For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny Defendant’s Motion. Background Plaintiff Mark Bacon (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Grapetree Shores, Inc. (“Defendant”) on August 4, 2010 alleging that he suffered from an “eruption” of welts and blisters on his body after staying in Defendant’s hotel as a result of Defendant’s negligent maintenance of the guestrooms and bathrooms. (Dkt. No. 1). …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-1_10-cv-00071/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_10-cv-00071-1.pdf
SHA-256 e29b36376ddf1e3a8d79802ccf1f8479f81664db16a6cf7cb2466c2d34a855a3
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-e29b36376ddf
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX MARK A. BACON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 2010-071 ) ) GRAPETREE SHORES, INC., d/b/a ) DIVI CARINA BAY HOTEL ) ) Defendant. ) _________________________________________ ) Attorneys: Kye Walker, Esq., St. Croix, U.S.V.I. For the Plaintiff Ryan C. Meade, Esq., Miami, FL Leslie A. Kelley, Esq., St. Croix, U.S.V.I. For the Defendants MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Lewis, Chief Judge THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant’s “Motion for Declaratory Judgment that Plaintiff’s Demand for Arbitration was Filed Beyond the Statute of Limitations.” (Dkt. No. 19). For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny Defendant’s Motion. Background Plaintiff Mark Bacon (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Grapetree Shores, Inc. (“Defendant”) on August 4, 2010 alleging that he suffered from an “eruption” of welts and blisters on his body after staying in Defendant’s hotel as a result of Defendant’s negligent maintenance of the guestrooms and bathrooms. (Dkt. No. 1). Plaintiff alleges that he stayed in Case: 1:10-cv-00071-WAL-GWC Document #: 24 Filed: 12/05/13 Page 1 of 3 2 Defendant’s hotel from January 10, 2010 through February 28, 2010. (Id.) On April 28, 2011, the Court issued an Order granting Defendant’s “Motion to Compel Arbitration and for Stay of Proceedings.” (Dkt. No. 10). Plaintiff filed a “Demand for Arbitration” with the American Arbitration Association on February 26, 2013. (See Dkt. No. 17). On March 28, 2013, Defendant filed its “Motion for Declaratory Judgment that Plaintiff’s Demand for Arbitration was Filed Beyond the Statute of Limitations.” (Dkt. No. 19). Plaintiff filed a Response on April 12, 2013 (Dkt. No. 20), and Defendant filed a Reply on April 29, 2013 (Dkt. No. 21). Then, on November 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Notice with the Court that, on November 5, 2013, the arbitrator denied Defendant’s “Motion to Dismiss Demand for Arbitration as Untimely.” (Dkt. No. 23). Discussion Before reaching the merits of Defendant’s Motion, the Court must determine whether this matter is properly before it. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 553 U.S. 83, 94–95 (1998) (“The requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter springs from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States and is inflexible and without exception.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court concludes that this matter is not properly before it. Indeed, it is well established that “procedural questions, such as those concerning waiver, delay, or the procedural prerequisites to arbitration, are for the arbitrator to decide.” Langlais v. Pennmont Benefit Srvs., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 11499, at *5 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 84 (2002)); see also Glass v. Kidder Peabody & Co., 114 F.3d 446, 455–56 (4th Cir. 1997) (holding that “[d]efenses of laches, mere delay, statute of limitations, and untimeliness . . . . [are] a matter of procedural arbitrability solely for the arbitrator’s decision.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Shearson Case: 1:10-cv-00071-WAL-GWC Document #: 24 Filed: 12/05/13 Page 2 of 3 3 Leahman Hutton, Inc. v. Waggoner, 944 F.2d 114, 121 (2d Cir. 1991) (“[I]t is up to the arbitrators, not the court, to decide the validity of time-bar defenses.”) (citation omitted). By Plaintiff’s “Notice to Court,” filed on November 13, 2013, the Court has been advised that the arbitrator has ruled on Defendant’s timeliness challenge. A ruling by the arbitrator is in accord with the applicable law because the validity of time-bar defenses is for the arbitrator to decide. See Shearson, 944 F.2d at 121. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s “Motion for Declaratory Judgment that Plaintiff’s Demand for Arbitration was Filed Beyond the Statute of Limitations” (Dkt. No. 19) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that Defendant’s “Request for Ruling and/or Oral Argument” (Dkt. No. 22) is DENIED AS MOOT. SO ORDERED. Date: December 5, 2013 _______/s/________ WILMA A. LEWIS Chief Judge Case: 1:10-cv-00071-WAL-GWC Document #: 24 Filed: 12/05/13 Page 3 of 3