Ford Motor Co v. Woods

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
January 31, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
_________________
No. 05-30260
(Summary Calendar)
_________________
FORD MOTOR CO,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BERNIE WOODS, SR,
Defendant-Appellant.
_____________________________
FORD MOTOR MINORITY DEALERS ASSOCIATION
Amicus Curiae
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:04-CV-1733
Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*

-- 1 of 3 --

47.5.4.
-2-
Bernie Woods (“Woods”) appeals from the district court’s order staying the proceedings
between Woods and Ford Motor Co. (“Ford”) before the Louisiana Motor Vehicle Commission
(LMVC). Woods argues that the district court erred in ordering the parties to arbitrate their dispute
and that the district court lacked the statutory power and jurisdiction to stay state administrative
proceedings as a means of enforcing its order compelling arbitration.
The district court’s order compelling arbitration, which was issued over a month before the
order from which Woods appeals, was final and immediately appealable when issued. See Green Tree
Financial Corp. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 86 (2000). Woods did not appeal the order within the
30-day period set out in FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Because Woods did not timely appeal the order
compelling arbitration, this court has no jurisdiction to review it. See In re Lacey, 114 F.3d 556, 557
(5th Cir. 1997) (“A timely notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional.”). This court therefore
will not consider Woods’s arguments that the district court erred in compelling the parties to arbitrate
their dispute.
Woods also argues that the district court lacked the power to stay the LMVC proceedings
under 9 U.S.C. § 3. The district court, however, explicitly relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the All Writs
Act, when it stayed the LMVC proceedings. § 1651(a) authorizes federal courts to issue “all writs
necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions.” Id. In this circuit, district courts
may stay parallel state proceedings after compelling arbitration pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 4, the Federal
Arbitration Act. See Am. Heritage Life Ins. Co., 294 F.3d 702, 714 & n.3 (Dennis, J., concurring)
(5th Cir. 2002) (approving a district court’s stay of state proceedings under the All Writs Act).
Woods’s argument that the district court lacked the statutory power to stay the LMVC is therefore

-- 2 of 3 --

1 Woods’s argument that the district court should not have stayed the LMVC
proceedings without making the LMVC party to the case in the district court i s foreclosed by
American Heritage and similar cases. The same is true of his argument that the district court should
have abstained from staying the LMVC proceedings under Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, 334
(1943).
-3-
unavailing.1
Finally, the district court had jurisdiction to issue an order enforcing its prior judgment. See
Test Masters Educ. Servs. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559, 577 (5th Cir. 2005) (“District courts can enter
injunctions as a means to enforce prior judgments.”).
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

-- 3 of 3 --