Order | Filed: September 23, 2026
| Entered: September 23, 2026
Esaadi v. Pilot Catastrophe Services Inc et al
Civil Rights: Employment | Texas Northern
Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
ELECTRONIC ORDER:
Plaintiff Waleed Mohamed Esaadi filed this lawsuit raising employment claims pro se against Defendants Pilot Catastrophe Services, Inc. and Allstate Insurance Company. See Dkt. No. 3.
The parties filed a joint motion to stay this case pending arbitration [Dkt. No. 11], based on which the Court entered an Order Granting Joint Motion to Stay Case Pending Arbitration and Requiring Joint Status Report in which the Court granted that joint motion and "STAYS this case, RETAINS it while the parties proceed to arbitrate, and ORDERS counsel for one of the defendants to file on behalf of the parties a joint status report by November 2, 2026." Dkt. No. 12 at 1-2. The Court then denied "as unnecessary Plaintiff Waleed Mohamed Esaadi's motion to stay case pending arbitration [Dkt. No. 13], as the Court has already granted the parties' joint motion requesting the same relief." Dkt. No. 14 at 1.
Plaintiff Waleed Mohamed Esaadi then filed a motion seeking the Court's assistance based on the costs of arbitration, which motion includes a request for the Court to "consider whether an arbitrator can be appointed or otherwise identified at a reasonable cost or whether the cost of the arbitrator can be shared equitably between Plaintiff and Defendant in light of Plaintiff's limited financial circumstances." Dkt. No. 16 (cleaned up). The Court will address that motion in a separate order.
But the Court notes that, under the Federal Arbitration Act, "jurisdiction by the courts to intervene into the arbitral process prior to issuance of an award is very limited." Gulf Guar. Life Ins. Co. v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 304 F.3d 476, 486 (5th Cir. 2002).
The Court has not set a deadline for the parties to complete arbitration -- it only set a deadline for a joint status report on the arbitration (not mediation). And the Court has not actually ordered the parties to arbitrate (or, for that matter, attend a mediation) but rather, on their joint motion (and Plaintiff's duplicative motion), stayed this court case while the parties proceed to arbitrate (not mediate).
But Plaintiff Waleed Mohamed Esaadi has now filed Motion to Enforce the Court's Arbitration Order and Request for Remote Arbitration and Extension of Time, asking "the Court for assistance in implementing the Court's order requiring the parties to proceed with arbitration/mediation" and requesting "that the Court order the parties to participate in the arbitration/mediation by a reasonable remote method, such as videoconference, and extend the applicable deadline so that the arbitration/mediation can be arranged." Dkt. No. 17 at 1. Plaintiff's motion asks the Court to "ENFORCE AND CLARIFY its existing arbitration order" and "order or permit the arbitration/mediation to be conducted remotely by videoconference or another appropriate electronic method" and "extend the deadline for completing the arbitration/mediation for at least 30 days, or for such period as the Court determines appropriate." Id. at 5.
But there is no order by this Court in this case requiring the parties to arbitrate -- or, for that matter, mediate this case. If there were an order compelling arbitration, it'd be based on the parties' contractual agreement to arbitrate, which the Court would not have the power to modify, change, or alter. And the Court has not set a deadline for the parties to complete the arbitration that they've agreed to submit to and pending which the Court has stayed this case.
And, so, the Court denies Plaintiff Waleed Mohamed Esaadi's Motion to Enforce the Court's Arbitration Order and Request for Remote Arbitration and Extension of Time [Dkt. No. 17].
(Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Horan on 9/23/2026.)