• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

  • About
    • Events
  • Articles
    • Treaty Tips
    • Special Focus
    • Market
  • Contact
  • Exclusive Content
    • Blog Staff Picks
    • Cat Risks
    • Regulatory Modernization
    • Webinars
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Arbitration / Court Decisions / Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Complaint With Prejudice After Plaintiff Failed to Initiate Arbitration Proceedings

Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Complaint With Prejudice After Plaintiff Failed to Initiate Arbitration Proceedings

September 15, 2022 by Kenneth Cesta

Plaintiff R&C Oilfield Services appealed from an order of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The district court granted defendant American Wind Transport Group’s motion to compel R&C to arbitrate the parties’ commercial dispute, having determined that the arbitration clause was not a contract of employment between the parties as R&C contended and was thus enforceable. The district court stayed the case pending arbitration and denied R&C’s motion for reconsideration. More than a year later, the district court ordered the parties to submit a joint status report. The report included confirmation that “Plaintiff had not commenced an arbitration, and did not plan to do so.” American Wind then moved to dismiss R&C’s complaint with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) based on R&C’s refusal to initiate arbitration proceedings. The district court weighed the factors for dismissal with prejudice set forth in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. and granted the motion to dismiss R&C’s complaint with prejudice.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal order, noting that “[c]ourts possess inherent power to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” The court observed that R&C had “multiple avenues to seek appeal of the District Court’s order to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration” and did not seek interlocutory review under the Federal Arbitration Act. The court further noted that R&C failed to initiate arbitration proceedings and instead “sat on its rights for a year and a half and told the District Court that it did not intend to comply with the order, leaving the Court no choice but to involuntarily dismiss the complaint.” The Third Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) under these circumstances, and the district court “soundly exercised its discretion in dismissing this case.”

R&C Oilfield Services, LLC v. American Wind Transport Group, LLC, No. 21-2742 (3d Cir. Aug. 15, 2022).

Filed Under: Arbitration / Court Decisions

Primary Sidebar

Carlton Fields Logo

A blog focused on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Focused Topics

Hot Topics

Read the results of Artemis’ latest survey of reinsurance market professionals concerning the state of the market and their intentions for 2019.

Recent Updates

Market (1/27/2019)
Articles (1/2/2019)

See our advanced search tips.

Subscribe

If you would like to receive updates to Reinsurance Focus® by email, visit our Subscription page.
© 2008–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · Disclaimers and Conditions of Use

Reinsurance Focus® is a registered service mark of Carlton Fields. All Rights Reserved.

Please send comments and questions to the Reinsurance Focus Administrators

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.