United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Oxford Division
ROBERT G. HALLAM, and ALAINE G. HALLAM, Individuals PLAINTIFFS
SOUTHAVEN R.V. CENTER, INC., a Mississippi Profit Corporation; and REV RECREATION GROUP, INC., a Foreign Profit Corporation DEFENDANTS
M. BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is “Defendant Southaven R.V. Center,
Inc.’s Motion to Stay Action and Compel Plaintiffs to
Submit Their Claims to Binding Arbitration.” Doc. #7.
September 7, 2018, Robert and Alaine Hallam filed a
three-count complaint against Southaven R.V. Center, Inc.
(“Southaven RV”), and REV Recreation Group, Inc.
(“REV”), in the County Court of DeSoto County,
Mississippi. Doc. #2 at 1. In their complaint, the Hallams
allege that they purchased a used motor home from Southaven
RV and that, within the warranty period, they discovered
defects in the motor home which REV, the manufacturer, failed
to repair. Id. at 1–3. Counts I and II of the
complaint assert that REV breached the factory warranty and
violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §
2301, et seq. Id. at 4–5, 5–6. Count III
seeks revocation of the Hallams’ acceptance of the
motor home and the return of the purchase price from
Southaven RV. Id. at 6–7.
asserting federal question jurisdiction, removed the
Hallams’ state court action to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi on
October 18, 2018. Doc. #1. Southaven RV consented to and
joined in the removal. Doc. #3 at 1. On October 25, 2018, REV
filed a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary
judgment regarding the claims alleged against it. Doc. #5.
REV’s motion to dismiss has been fully
briefed. Docs. ##10–12.
November 5, 2018, Southaven RV filed a “Motion to Stay
Action and Compel Plaintiffs to Submit Their Claims to
Binding Arbitration” regarding the claims brought
against it. Doc. #7.
days later, United States Magistrate Judge Roy Percy stayed
all discovery and disclosure requirements pending a ruling on
the motion to compel arbitration. Doc. #9. Neither REV nor
the Hallams responded to Southaven RV’s motion to
2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”)
A written provision in … a contract evidencing a
transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a
controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or
transaction … shall be valid, irrevocable, and
enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in
equity for the revocation of any contract.
9 U.S.C. § 2 (2019). This provision “requires
courts to enforce covered arbitration agreements according to
their terms.” Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 139
S.Ct. 1407, 1412 (2019). However, “a court may order
arbitration of a particular dispute only where the court is
satisfied that the parties agreed to arbitrate that dispute,
” Papalote Creek II, L.L.C. v. Lower Co. River
Auth., 918 F.3d 450, 454 (5th Cir. 2019) (emphasis
omitted); and where “legal constraints external to the
parties’ agreement [do not] foreclose the arbitration
of those claims, ” Tittle v. Enron Corp., 463
F.3d 410, 418 (5th Cir. 2006) (quoting Mitsubishi Motors
Corp. v. Solar Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614,