Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 13-1423
JOHN L. DEROSA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
J. P. WALSH & J. L. MARMO ENTERPRISES, INC., a Delaware
Corporation,
Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:10-cv-00287-CMH-TRJ)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Appellant, J.P. Walsh & J.L. Marmo Enterprises, Inc.
(Marmo),
appeals
the
district
courts
order
denying
with
prejudice its motion to lift stay and reinstate the case to the
active docket.
with
manufacture
Marmos
efforts
to
and
sell
his
invention,
contract
and
seeking
rescission
of
the
contract.
The
Compl. 20. 1
filed
its
Answer
on
April
10,
2010,
which
thereafter
filed
motion
to
stay
the
case
pending
The parties
had
subject
previously
agreed
that
their
dispute
was
to
extent
that
it
believed
its
counterclaim
for
patent
After a
J.A. 142.
suggested
that
the
Court
fashion
remedy
Marmo
whereby
forward.
J.A. 153.
Arbitrate,
specifying,
Mr.
DeRosa
seek[s]
damages
and
J.A. 247.
Id. at 250.
In
at
253.
statement
of
The
parties
arbitratable
then
submitted
issues,
which
proposed
did
not
joint
include
The arbitrator
the contract.
J.A.
patents
arose
out
of
[the]
contract,
Id. at 290.
including
any
Accordingly, on
See Maryland v.
of
the
district
courts
orders
compelling
arbitration
district
dispute
court
only
may
when
the
compel
arbitration
parties
have
of
agreed
a
to
resolution
of
the
dispute
at
issue.
Muriithi
Shuttle Express, Inc., 712 F.3d 173, 179 (4th Cir. 2013).
v.
When
might
not
be
arbitratable,
the
court
must
sever
and
compel
that
arbitration,
including
the
district
patent
thereby
patent
court
twice
infringement
defining
the
infringement.
rejected
was
scope
First,
not
of
the
Marmos
subject
to
arbitration
as
district
court
the
case
pending
resolution
of
the
binding
arbitration.
will
be
severed
from
[DeRosa]s
rejecting
Marmos
attempts
claim
for
J.A. 153.
to
exclude
from
reach
the
issue
of
whether
Marmos
counterclaim
for
patent
should
have
pursued
at
arbitration.
Therefore,
the
we
affirm
the
district
courts
order