Baker v. PJ Ohio, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
JOSHUA BAKER, et al.,
Plaintiffs, 	Case No. 3:25-cv-3
vs.
PJ OHIO, LLC, et al., 	District Judge Michael J. Newman
Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER: (1) HOLDING IN ABEYANCE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY THE
PROCEEDINGS AND COMPEL ARBITRATION (Doc. No. 20); (2) REFERRING THE
CASE TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR LIMITED DISCOVERY; (3) SETTING A
SUMMARY TRIAL FOR MAY 14, 2026; AND (4) SETTING A DISCOVERY
DEADLINE OF APRIL 14, 2026
______________________________________________________________________________
This case is before the Court upon a motion by Defendants PJ Ohio, LLC; Serazen, LLC;
PJ Las Vegas, LLC; PJ North Carolina, LLC; Doug Pak; and Darcie Mangus to stay the
proceedings and compel arbitration. Doc. No. 20. Plaintiffs Joshua Baker and Tristan Berghoff-
Wagner have responded in opposition. 	Doc. No. 22. 	Defendants have replied. 	Doc. No. 26.
Additionally, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply (Doc. No. 33), which
Plaintiffs then filed (Doc. No. 34).
Defendants 	present 	electronic 	records 	indicating 	Plaintiffs 	signed 	the 	arbitration
agreements at issue. 	Doc. No. 20-2 at PageID 139; Doc. No. 20-3 at PageID 143. 	However,
Plaintiffs present affidavits denying that they signed those agreements. Doc. No. 22-1 at PageID
162; Doc. No. 22-2 at PageID 165. This creates a genuine dispute of fact in the instant case as to
the arbitration agreements’ formation—including whether Plaintiff “agreed to arbitrate at all.”
Boykin v. v. Fam. Dollar Stores of Mich., LLC, 3 F.4th 832, 843 (6th Cir. 2021) (“[T]he duty to
Case: 3:25-cv-00003-MJN-PBS Doc #: 35 Filed: 02/17/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
arbitrate arises only from the party’s consent”); see id. at 841 (“Boykin has identified a genuine
dispute of fact over whether the parties have formed a contract—a dispute that entitles him to
targeted discovery and a trial on the question”). Because of this dispute, Plaintiffs are entitled to
a limited hearing on the issue of the validity of the arbitration agreements. See id. at 844 (holding
that the district court erred in granting a motion to compel arbitration when the plaintiff had
presented an affidavit unequivocally denying that he signed the arbitration agreement).
For the reasons set forth above, the Court HOLDS IN ABEYANCE Defendants’ motion
to stay and compel arbitration. Doc. No. 20; see Boykin at 844 (“…the court should hold its motion
in abeyance”). 	Additionally, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 4), the Court
SCHEDULES a summary trial limited to the question of formation of the arbitration agreements
for 9:00 a.m. on May 14, 2026. 	Before the summary trial, the parties are REFERRED to
Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr. to oversee limited discovery that is narrowly tailored to the
question of the arbitration agreements’ validity. 	All discovery on this limited issue shall be
COMPLETED by April 14, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 17, 2026 	s/Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00003-MJN-PBS Doc #: 35 Filed: 02/17/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>