Thomas P. Barber

Grants motions to compel arbitration to the extent the defendants may enforce the agreements, and stays the case pending completion of arbitration rather than dismissing.

“(1) The motions to compel arbitration (Docs. 84; 85; 87; 88; 89) are GRANTED to the extent the Court finds that Defendants may enforce the arbitration agreements in this case. (2) The motions are DENIED to the extent that Plaintiffs' claims are not subject to dismissal at this time. (3) This case is STAYED pending the completion of arbitration ...”

He treats Eleventh Amendment immunity as a threshold jurisdictional bar for claims against a state university in federal court, even where the state may have waived immunity for a different statutory claim. Claims that remain viable in state court may still be dismissed from the federal action without leave to amend there.

“just because the state may waive immunity for one type of claim (such as the Rehabilitation Act) does not mean that it waives immunity for all possible claims”

For ADA accommodation claims, he distinguishes trained service animals from emotional-support animals and will dismiss a Title II theory based solely on an emotional-support animal as legally unavailable.

“It is undisputed that Plaintiff’s cat is not a service animal. Consequently, any ADA claim fails as a matter of law.”