govinfo:USCOURTS-casd-3_26-cv-00585-0

1 
3:26-CV-0585 W (MSB) 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
MARSHA STARR, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
DENISE CAMPBELL, et al., 
Defendants. 
 Case No.:  3:26-CV-0585 W (MSB) 
 
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 
MOTION TO COMPEL 
ARBITRATION AND DISMISSING 
CASE [DOC. 5] 
 
 Pending before the Court is a motion to compel arbitration filed by Defendants 
Denise Campbell and Honors Way Group LLC (“Defendants”). Plaintiff Marsha Starr did 
not file an opposition.  
The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument.  
See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1).  For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ 
motion to compel arbitration [Doc. 5.] and ORDERS this case DISMISSED. 
 
I. BACKGROUND 
This lawsuit arises from Plaintiff Marsha Starr’s $50,000 investment in a Texas 
limited liability company. (Compl. [Doc. 1] at ¶ 8, Ex. A; P&A [Doc. 5-1] at 2:3–5.) 
Case 3:26-cv-00585-W-MSB     Document 6     Filed 06/18/26     PageID.<pageID>     Page 1
of 5
 
2 
3:26-CV-0585 W (MSB) 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
According to Plaintiff, the investment is governed by an Amended & Restated Company 
Agreement of The Prestige Build Vertical LLC (the “Company Agreement”). (Compl. at 
¶¶ 8–10, Ex. A.) Under the agreement, the company was required to make quarterly 
payments to “Plaintiff in the amount of thirteen percent (13%) per year, paid quarterly.” 
(Id. at ¶ 9.) The first quarterly payment of $1,625 was due on October 1, 2025, but 
Defendants failed to make the payment. (Id. at ¶¶ 10, 11.)  
On October 29, 2025, Plaintiff sent a demand letter to Defendants requesting the 
return of her $50,000 investment by November 15, with interest. (Compl. at ¶ 14.) 
Plaintiff also demanded financial records and a written explanation for the failure to 
make the required payment. (Id. at ¶ 15.) Defendants failed to return her investment and 
did not provide the requested financial records or explanation. (Id. at ¶¶ 16–18.)  
On January 29, 2026, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit. The Complaint asserts seven 
causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; 
(3) fraud/intentional misrepresentation; (4) conversion; (5) violation of California 
securities laws; (6) rescission; and (7) unjust enrichment quasi-contract. (See Compl.) 
Defendants now move to compel arbitration and dismiss or, in the alternative, stay this 
case.  
 
II. LEGAL STANDARD 
The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provides: “[a] written provision in any . . . 
contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a 
controversy thereafter arising out of such contract . . . shall be valid, irrevocable, and 
enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. “A party 
seeking to compel arbitration has the burden under the FAA to show (1) the existence of 
a valid, written agreement to arbitrate; and, if it exists, (2) that the agreement to arbitrate 
encompasses the dispute at issue.” Ashbey v. Archstone Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 785 F.3d 
1320, 1323 (9th Cir. 2015). 
Case 3:26-cv-00585-W-MSB     Document 6     Filed 06/18/26     PageID.<pageID>     Page 2
of 5
 
3 
3:26-CV-0585 W (MSB) 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
“The ‘principal purpose’ of the FAA is to ‘ensur[e] that private arbitration 
agreements are enforced according to their terms.’” AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 
563 U.S. 333, 344 (2011) (quoting Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of 
Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 478 (1989)). “Any doubts concerning the 
scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration.” Moses H. Cone 
Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24–25 (1983). 
When ruling on a motion to compel arbitration, courts apply a standard similar to 
that found in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. See Concat LP v. Unilever, PLC, 350 F. 
Supp. 2d 796, 804 (N.D. Cal. 2004). “‘Before a party to a lawsuit can be ordered to 
arbitrate and thus be deprived of a day in court, there should be an express, unequivocal 
agreement to that effect. If there is doubt as to whether such an agreement exists, the 
matter, upon a proper and timely demand, should be submitted to a jury.’” Three Valleys 
Mun. Water Dist. v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 925 F.2d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting 
Par–Knit Mills, Inc. v. Stockbridge Fabrics Co., 636 F.2d 51, 54 (3d Cir. 1980)). 
 
III. DISCUSSION 
A. Failure to Oppose the Motion to Compel Arbitration. 
Civil Local Rule 7.1(f.3.c) expressly provides that “[i]f an opposing party fails to 
file papers in the manner required by Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), that failure may constitute a 
consent to the granting of that motion or other ruling by the court.” The Ninth Circuit has 
held that pursuant to a local rule, a district court may properly grant a motion for failure 
to respond. See generally Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam) 
(affirming dismissal for failure to file timely opposition papers where plaintiff had notice 
of the motion and ample time to respond). Under Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), the Court 
construes Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendants’ motion as consent to its merits. For 
this reason, the Court willl grant the motion to compel arbitration and dismiss. 
 
 
Case 3:26-cv-00585-W-MSB     Document 6     Filed 06/18/26     PageID.<pageID>     Page 3
of 5
 
4 
3:26-CV-0585 W (MSB) 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
B. This Dispute is Covered by an Arbitration Agreement. 
Defendants argue that this dispute is governed by a mandatory arbitration 
agreement. The Court agrees. 
According to the Complaint, Defendants were obligated to make quarterly 
payments to Plaintiff under the Company Agreement.  (Compl. at ¶¶ 8–10, citing Ex. A.) 
Paragraph 15.7 of that agreement provides, in relevant part:  
15.7 Governing law; Severability; ARBITRATION. . . . Any 
disputes, claims, or issues arising out of or related to this Company 
Agreement, the relationship between the Members or Manager shall be 
resolved by BINDING ARBITRATION applying the rules and procedures 
of the American Arbitration Association by a single Arbitrator. . . . Venue 
for any dispute related to the Company, its assets, or this Company 
Agreement shall be in Collin County, Texas. 
(Id. Ex. A at ¶ 15.7; see also Clarke Decl. [Doc. 5-2] ¶ 7, Defs’ Ex. B [Doc. 5-3] at ¶ 
15.7.) Because Plaintiff’s claims arise out of or relate to the Company Agreement, the 
arbitration provision encompasses the “dispute at issue.” For this additional reason, the 
Court will grant the motion to compel arbitration. 
 
C. Dismissal is Appropriate. 
In a federal suit brought upon an issue referable to arbitration under a written 
agreement, the court in which the suit is pending “shall on application of one of the 
parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with 
the terms of the agreement.”  9 U.S.C. § 3. Recently, the Supreme Court held that this 
language compels a district court to stay a lawsuit subject to an enforceable arbitration 
agreement when a party has requested a stay. Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472, 476–477 
(2024).   
Here, Plaintiff did not oppose the motion to compel arbitration and has not 
requested a stay. Additionally, the parties’ arbitration agreement provides that the proper 
venue is Collin County, Texas. Under these circumstances, the Court finds dismissal is 
appropriate. 
Case 3:26-cv-00585-W-MSB     Document 6     Filed 06/18/26     PageID.<pageID>     Page 4
of 5
 
5 
3:26-CV-0585 W (MSB) 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
IV. CONCLUSION & ORDER 
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to compel 
arbitration [Doc. 5] before the American Arbitration Association by a single arbitrator in 
Collin County, Texas and ORDERS the case DISMISSED. 
 IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated:  June 18, 2026  
 
 
 
Case 3:26-cv-00585-W-MSB     Document 6     Filed 06/18/26     PageID.<pageID>     Page 5
of 5

Passage view · GavelSight