United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division
C.DEVER III Chief United States District Judge.
December 21, 2016, defendants CVS Foundation, Inc., CVS
Pharmacy, Inc., and CVS Rx Services, Inc., ("CVS"
or "defendants"), filed a joint motion to dismiss
and to compel arbitration of Mohamed Emam's
("Emam" or "plaintiff') claims [D.E. 12].
On January 13, 2017, Emam responded in opposition [D.E. 19].
On January 27, 2017, defendants moved to strike the
affidavits of Larry V. Powell and Mohamed Emam [D.E. 20]. On
January 27, 2017, defendants replied to Emam's response
in opposition [D.E. 22].
arbitration policy at issue provides (among other things)
1. Mutual Obligation to Arbitrate. Under this
Policy, CVS Health (including its subsidiaries) and its
Employees agree that any dispute between an Employee and CVS
Health that is covered by this Policy ("Covered
Claims") will be decided by a single arbitrator through
final and binding arbitration only and will not be decided by
a court or jury or any other forum, except as otherwise
provided in this Policy. This Policy is an agreement to
arbitrate disputes covered by the Federal Arbitration Act (9
U.S.C. §§, 1-16). Employees accept this Policy by
continuing their employment after becoming aware of the
2. Claims Covered by This Policy. Except as
otherwise stated in this Policy, Covered Claims are any and
all legal claims, disputes or controversies that CVS Health
may have, now or in the future, against an Employee or that
an Employee may have, now or in the future, against CVS
Health, its parents, subsidiaries, successors or affiliates,
or one of its employees or agents, arising out of or related
to the Employee's employment with CVS Health or the
termination of the Employee's employment.
Covered Claims include but are not limited to disputes
regarding... harassment, discrimination, retaliation and
termination arising under the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
Americans with Disabilities Act, Age Discrimination in
Employment Act, Family Medical Leave Act, Fair Labor
Standards Act... and other federal, state and local statutes,
regulations and other legal authorities relating to
Covered Claims also include disputes arising out of or
relating to the validity, enforceability or breach of this
Policy, except as provided below regarding the Class Action
[D.E. 13-1] 7-8. Emam has not plausibly alleged that
defendants obtained the arbitration policy by fraud or
overreaching. See, e.g.. Carnival
Cruise Lines. Inc. v. Shute. 499 U.S. 585, 595 (1991);
Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co.. 417 U.S. 506, 519-20
(1974); cf Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). Moreover, North Carolina public
policy and North Carolina contract law do not invalidate the
arbitration clause. See, e.g., M/S Bremen v. Zapata
Off-Shore Co.. 407 U.S. 1, 9-12 (1972); O'Neil
v. Hilton Head Hosp.. 115 F.3d 272, 275-76 (4th Cir.
1997); Johnson v. Circuit Citv Stores. 148
F.3d 373, 377-79 (4th Cir. 19981: Howard v. Oakwood Homes
Corp.. 134 N.C. App. 116, 121-22, 516 S.E.2d879, 881-83
(1999). Finally, Emam has not plausibly alleged that the
claims at issue are not suitable for arbitration.
See, e.g.. Rent-A-Ctr.. W.. Inc. v.
Jackson. 561 U.S. 63, 67-75 (2010); Buckeye Check
Cashing. Inc. v. Cardegna. 546 U.S. 440, 443-46 (2006);
Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph. 531 U.S. 79,
a matter of federal law, any doubts concerning the scope of
arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of
arbitration" Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v.
Mercury Constr. Corp.. 460 U.S. 1, 24-25 (1983): see
Am. Recovery Corp. v. Computerized Thermal Imaging.,
Inc.. 96 F.3d88, 92(4thCir. 1996). Plaintiff s claims fall
within the arbitration clause. Moreover, even if the language
is ambiguous, any doubt is resolved in favor of arbitration.
See, e.g.. Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp..
460 U.S. at 24-25; Choice Hotels Int'l. Inc. v. BSR
Tropicana Resort. Inc. 252 F.3d 707, 711 (4th Cir.
2001). Accordingly, all of plaintiff s claims are arbitrable.
See Peabody Holding Co. v. United Mine Workers
of Am.. Int'l Union. 665 F.3d 96, 104-07 (4th Cir.
2012); Porter Havden Co. v. Century Indem. Co.. 136
F.3d 380, 381-82 (4th Cir. 1998); Nat'l Ass'n of
Assoc. Publishers v. Prince Publ' g. Inc.. No.
6:96-CV-1063.1997 WL 34588520. at *2-4 (M.D. N.C. May 8,
1997) (unpublished). Thus, defendants' motion to compel
arbitration is granted.
the court DENIES defendants' motion to dismiss without
prejudice and GRANTS defendants' motion to compel
arbitration. See [D.E. 12]. The court ...