DENNIS CAMPBELL
v.
AIVA GLOBAL, INC., JAMES MULLER, AND MARIA SHELTON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this employment dispute, the district court denied defendants' motion to compel arbitration and refused to stay proceedings. Defendants appealed, and the court sua sponte reconsidered, granting a stay of counts V-VIII pending the appeal's outcome, consistent with the mandatory stay requirement under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a).
The court held that a mandatory stay of proceedings is required during the pendency of an interlocutory appeal of a district court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a). The court stayed counts V-VIII and ordered defendants to respond within 21 days of the appeal's termination unless the September 29 Order is reversed or the plaintiff consents to arbitration.
[1] A federal district court must stay its proceedings during the pendency of an interlocutory appeal of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration.
[2] When a federal district court denies a motion to compel arbitration, the losing party has a statutory right to an interlocutory appeal.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When a federal district court denies a motion to compel arbitration, the losing party has a statutory right to an interlocutory appeal.”
Establishes the statutory right to appeal denial of arbitration motions under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDennis Campbell brought suit against Aiva Global, Inc., James Muller, and Maria Shelton. Defendants Muller and Shelton sought to compel arbitration ba…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Stay Of Proceedings Pending Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Case No: 8:24-cv-02862-MSS-NHA
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court sua sponte. Defendants James Muller ("Muller") and Maria Shelton ("Shelton") (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a Notice of Appeal on October 1, 2025. (Dkt. 29) Defendants appeal the Court's Order dated September 29, 2025 (the “September 29 Order”), (Dkt. 27), to the extent the Court: held that that the arbitration clause at issue does not apply to Defendants, held that Defendants may not invoke the arbitration clause's terms to compel arbitration, and denied a stay of proceedings as to Counts V-VIII. (Dkt. 29)
“When a federal district court denies a motion to compel arbitration, the losing party has a statutory right to an interlocutory appeal.” Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, 599 U.S. 736, 738, 143 S. Ct. 1915, 1918, 216 L. Ed. 2d 671 (2023) (citing 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)). A district court must stay its proceedings during the pendency of an interlocutory appeal of the district court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration. Id.
Accordingly, the Court hereby STAYS proceedings as to Counts V-VIII during the pendency of Defendants' appeal of the September 29 Order. Defendants are ORDERED to respond to Counts V-VIII within twenty-one (21) days of the termination of the pendency of Defendants' appeal of the September 29 Order unless either the September 29 Order is reversed or Plaintiff consents to arbitration of the claims advanced in Counts V-VIII. If the September 29 Order is reversed or Plaintiff consents to arbitration of the claims advanced in Counts V-VIII, the Parties shall file a joint notice advising the Court of how this case should proceed within seven (7) days of that occurrence.
The Clerk is directed to administratively CLOSE THIS CASE.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida this 9th day of October 2025.
MARY S SCRIVEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Any Unrepresented Party