Carson Thomas Nettle v. Clayton Homes of Neosho d/b/a Clayton Homes #689, CMH Homes, Inc., and Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc.

Nettle v. Clayton Homes of Neosho · United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Southwestern Division · April 22, 2026 · No. 3:26-cv-05017-MDH

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri grants Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation in a dispute concerning the purchase, financing, delivery, and installation of a manufactured home. The Court holds that the Federal Arbitration Act applies, that the parties formed a valid arbitration agreement through the Binding Dispute Resolution Agreement, and that the agreement encompasses Plaintiff’s claims. The case is stayed pending arbitration, and the parties are ordered to update the Court within 30 days after arbitration concludes.

Holdings

  1. The Federal Arbitration Act applies because the parties agreed that it governs the Binding Dispute Resolution Agreement and the manufactured-home transaction involved interstate commerce.
  2. The BDRA is a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement because it was supported by offer, acceptance, and bargained-for consideration.
  3. The BDRA encompasses all of Plaintiff's claims because they arise out of or relate to the manufactured home, the purchase transaction, related documents, representations, delivery, and installation.
  4. The court must stay the action pending arbitration and compel the parties to arbitrate Plaintiff's claims.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Binding Dispute Resolution Agreement is a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement under the Federal Arbitration Act.
  2. Whether the Federal Arbitration Act applies to the arbitration provision.
  3. Whether Plaintiff's claims fall within the scope of the Binding Dispute Resolution Agreement.
  4. Whether the action should be stayed pending arbitration rather than dismissed.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (23)

  • Int'l Ass'n of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing Ironworkers, Shopman's Local 493 v. EFCO Corp. & Const. Products, 359 F.3d 954, 955-56 (8th Cir. 2004)(followed)
  • United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582 (1960)(followed)
  • Express Scripts, Inc. v. Aegon Direct Mktg. Servs., Inc., 516 F.3d 695, 699-700 (8th Cir. 2008)(followed)
  • First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 943-46 (1995)(followed)
  • AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers, 475 U.S. 643, 648-52 (1986)(followed)
  • Keymer v. Mgmt. Recruiters Int'l, Inc., 169 F.3d 501, 504 (8th Cir. 1999)(followed)
  • United Steelworkers of Am. v. Duluth Clinic, Ltd., 413 F.3d 786, 788 (8th Cir. 2005)(followed)
  • Collins Radio Co. v. Ex-Cell-O Corp., 467 F.2d 995 (8th Cir. 1972)(followed)
  • State ex rel. Hewitt v. Kerr, 461 S.W.3d 798, 805 (Mo. banc 2015)(followed)
  • Jones v. GGNSC Pierre LLC, 684 F. Supp. 2d 1161 (D.S.D. 2010)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 23.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…