Grant v. Tech Mahindra (Americas), Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Roderick Grant, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
) 	AND RECOMMENDATION
vs. 	)
) 	Case No. 3:18-cv-171
Tech Mahindra (Americas), Inc., 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
Plaintiff Roderick Grant alleges his former employer, Defendant Tech Mahindra (Americas), Inc.
(“TMA”), engaged in a nationwide pattern or practice of discrimination based on race and national
origin. Doc. No. 1. TMA filed a motion to compel individual arbitration on February 26, 2019. Doc.
No. 40. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Doc. No. 47. Additionally, on June 5, 2019, Grant moved for
leave to amend the complaint to add another named plaintiff. Doc. No. 52. TMA opposes Grant’s
motion. Doc. No. 53.
On 	December 	5, 	2019, 	Magistrate 	Judge 	Alice 	R. 	Senechal 	issued 	a 	Report 	and
Recommendation, in which she recommended (1) TMA’s motion to compel individual arbitration be
granted and the case be stayed pending arbitration; (2) Grant’s claims for class-wide arbitration be
dismissed; and, (3) Grant’s motion for leave to amend the complaint be denied. Doc. No. 56.
The parties were initially given until December 19, 2019 to file any objection to the Report and
Recommendation. Grant filed a motion for extension of time to respond to the Report and
Recommendation. Doc. No. 57. Magistrate Judge Senechal granted Grant’s motion for an extension and
extended the objection deadline to January 9, 2020. Doc. No. 58. No objections were filed.
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation, relevant case law, and the
entire record, and finds the Report and Recommendation to be persuasive. 	Accordingly, the Court
ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 56) in its entirety and ORDERS as follows:
(1) 	TMA’s motion to compel individual arbitration is GRANTED;
(2) 	The case shall be STAYED pending the individual arbitration proceeding;
Case 3:18-cv-00171-PDW-ARS Document 59 Filed 02/06/20 Page 1 of 2

(3) 	Grant’s claims for class-wide arbitration are DISMISSED; and,
(4) 	Grant’s motion for leave to amend the complaint is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 6th day of February, 2020.
/s/ Peter D. Welte
Peter D. Welte, Chief Judge
United States District Court
2
Case 3:18-cv-00171-PDW-ARS Document 59 Filed 02/06/20 Page 2 of 2