// Add the new slick-theme.css if you want the default styling
In Ex parte Locklear Chrysler Jeep
Dodge, LLC and Locklear Automotive Group, Inc., the Alabama Supreme Court
granted a Petition for Writ of Mandamus (“Petition”), finding that the trial
court exceeded its discretion when it granted a Motion to Compel discovery on
issues unrelated to arbitration while a Motion to Compel arbitration was
presently pending.
Plaintiffs in the case allege that they
were victims of identity theft by a Locklear Chrysler Jeep Dodge, LLC
(“Locklear”) employee and brought suit against the dealership in Alabama state
court. At the time Plaintiffs were
shopping for cars, they completed credit applications with Locklear, each of
which contained a Binding Pre-Dispute Arbitration Agreement (“Arbitration
Agreement”).
Based on the Arbitration Agreements,
Locklear filed a Motion to Compel arbitration and requested the action
stayed. The trial court held a hearing
on the motions, but did not rule on them.
Meanwhile, Plaintiffs served interrogatories,
requests for production of documents, requests for admission, and notices of
deposition. While the Motion to Compel
arbitration was pending, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Locklear’s
responses to their discovery responses and to deem admitted their requests for
admissions. The trial court granted the
Motion to Compel.
In granting Locklear’s Petition, the
Alabama Supreme Court confirmed that although discovery may be allowed while a
Motion to Compel arbitration is pending, that discovery is limited to whether
the parties to the arbitration agreement must arbitrate their claims. Because the Plaintiffs did not request
discovery on any issue related to the Arbitration Agreement or enforcement of
the arbitration provision, but instead sought general discovery regarding the
merits of their claims, the trial court’s grant of the Motion to Compel
discovery was reversed.