Whitlow v. Crescent Consulting, LLC

Whitlow v. Crescent Consulting, LLC

Opinion

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Stay and Compel Arbitration (Doc. No. 101). Plaintiff Shaw, the subject of the motion, responded in opposition thereto. Defendant filed a reply in support of its position. (Doc. No. 103). Accordingly, the motion is ripe for consideration. Having considered the parties' submissions, the Court finds as follows.

Plaintiff is part of a collective action against Defendant alleging violations of the [*2]  Fair Labor Standards Act. He performed services to Defendant as a drilling consultant. He, and other Plaintiffs, contend Defendant mischaracterized them as independent contractors in an effort to avoid payment of overtime wages. The Court certified this as a collective action on August 14, 2017, and Plaintiff Shaw filed a consent to join on September 22, 2017. On February 8. 2018, Defendant filed the instant motion, asserting that a February 17, 2017, Independent Contractor Master Services Agreement executed between Mr. Shaw and Crescent Consulting mandates arbitration of this dispute. Plaintiff contends that Defendant's motion defies the Court's Order regarding Notice, and further, that compelling arbitration is inappropriate under the Court's precedent and the Federal Arbitration Act.

Plaintiff's first contention is that the Notice sent to potential opt-in plaintiffs did not include any information regarding arbitration. Without citation, Plaintiff argues that to permit arbitration of his claims is contrary to the language of the Notice, which informed potential plaintiffs:

If you return a Consent to Join Wage Claim form, you will join other drilling consultants who worked for Crescent [*3]  and have already made a claim for unpaid overtime wages.

The Court finds no legal basis for embracing Plaintiff's argument. Certain opt-in Plaintiffs were identified only after the Court ordered Notice. Although Defendant may have anticipated seeking to arbitrate the claims of certain drilling consultants in light of existing arbitration agreements, Plaintiff presents no legal support for his conclusion that Defendant was required to identify this issue when it objected to Plaintiff's motion for certification as a collective action.¹

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.