AlphaGraphics, Inc. v. Race et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 24-cv-02831-PAB-SBP
ALPHAGRAPHICS, Inc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
WENDY FLETCHER RACE, and
LLOYD WELLINGTON RACE, JR.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to
Compel Arbitration and Stay Federal Action [Docket No. 29]. 1 The Court has jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, and 1367. The franchise agreement between the
parties provides for binding arbitration over disputes arising under the agreement.
Docket No. 3-1 at 35. The parties ask the Court to enforce that provision. Docket No.
29 at 2.
This case arises out of a dispute between plaintiff AlphaGraphics, Inc. and
defendants Wendy and Lloyd Race, the former owners of an AlphaGraphics franchise
store. See generally Docket No. 1. On November 27, 2024, the Court entered a
1 While the motion asks the Court to stay the action, Docket No. 29 at 1, 7,
defendants also the raise the possibility of the Court dismissing the case. Id. at 2, 7.
Plaintiff filed a response indicating that, while it does not oppose defendants’ request to
stay the action, it would oppose a request to dismiss it. Docket No. 30 at 1.
Case No. 1:24-cv-02831-PAB-SBP Document 31 filed 01/16/25 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 3

2
stipulated injunction, Docket No. 27, which addressed the injunctive relief sought by
AlphaGraphics. Docket No. 29 at 2. The arbitration provision in the franchise
agreement made an exception for a dispute wherein AlphaGraphics requested
injunctive relief. Docket No. 3-1 at 35.
Courts evaluate motions to compel arbitration under a two-part analysis.
Cavlovic v. J.C. Penney Corp., Inc. 884 F.3d 1051, 1056-57 (10th Cir. 2018). First, the
Court must determine whether there is an agreement which provides the moving entity
the right to compel arbitration. Id. at 1057 (citing Jacks v. CMH Homes, Inc., 856 F.3d
1301, 1304 (10th Cir. 2017)). Second, if there is an arbitration agreement, the Court
must determine whether the facts at issue are within the scope of the agreement. Id.
(citing Dumais v. Am. Golf Corp., 299 F.3d 1216, 1219-20 (10th Cir. 2002)). The parties
do not dispute either part of this analysis. Docket No. 29 at 4. The Court finds that
granting this motion is appropriate.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay
Federal Action [Docket No. 29] is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that all claims in plaintiff’s complaint, except any already resolved by
the stipulated injunction entered in this case on November 27, 2024, shall be referred
for arbitration. It is further
ORDERED that this case is administratively closed pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR
41.2. Either party may move to reopen for good cause. Completion of arbitration will
constitute good cause. It is further
Case No. 1:24-cv-02831-PAB-SBP Document 31 filed 01/16/25 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 3

3
ORDERED that the parties shall file a status report with the Court on or before
July 16, 2025, or within 30 days of completion of arbitration, whichever is earlier.
DATED January 16, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
___________________________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District Judge
_________________________
Case No. 1:24-cv-02831-PAB-SBP Document 31 filed 01/16/25 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 3