Petition To Compel Arbitration

Hollingsworth v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al.

U.S. District Court, District of Oregon — Case No. 3:25-cv-01342-AB

This page documents the federal petition phase of my case, the moment the arbitration stopped being hidden and the full structure finally entered public view.

On July 31, 2025, I filed a federal Petition to Compel Arbitrator Appointment under 9 U.S.C. § 5 after JAMS issued a strike list that ignored the explicit agreement both sides made about needing an arbitrator with AI, emerging tech, and fraud experience.

Filing this petition:

• Forced the upstream actors (Sanofi, Chattem, Quten, AMJ Services, the Boutros family, and Deepak Chopra) onto a federal docket

• Made the entire arbitration record public

• Preserved the concealment, filings, withdrawals, IRS confirmations, and shell-entity evidence in a court of law

• And opened the path to real discovery

This page tells the story of everything that happened from July 31 through the judge’s ruling on November 24, 2025, which split the case into:

• Arbitration (DRVM LLC only)

• Federal litigation (all real upstream defendants)

⸻

1. Why I Filed the Petition (July 31, 2025)

By the end of July, arbitration was no longer a neutral forum. It had become:

• Two major law firms claiming to represent the same dissolved company

• Silence from every upstream entity

• DRVM’s sudden reactivation mid-case

• A secret $6,130.10 deposit sent hours before the arbitrator deadline

• A JAMS strike list with zero qualified arbitrators

• Obstruction, stalling, and avoidance from every angle

So I used the one tool the FAA gives when an arbitrator cannot be agreed upon:

I petitioned the federal court to appoint a qualified arbitrator under 9 U.S.C. § 5.

This brought the entire structure into the public record.

Key Document

Petition to Compel Arbitrator Appointment – July 31, 2025

➜ 

⸻

2. Case Assigned to Judge Amy Baggio

The petition was assigned to Judge Amy Baggio, a former federal public defender with a deep background in systemic-justice work.

This instantly transformed the case.

It was no longer happening in the shadows of arbitration.

It was now under the oversight of a federal judge.

⸻

3. Respondents Strike First (August 14, 2025)

Before:

• My fee waiver was ruled on,

• Formal service was completed, or

• The case was officially underway—

DRVM using Fisher Phillips, filed a 9-page attack to try and shape the judge’s perception.

They claimed:

• I was not a whistleblower

• The case was “just a wage dispute”

• AI, fraud, and shell-entity issues were irrelevant

• I was creating a “media spectacle”

Their strategy was clear:

Discredit the whistleblower before the judge sees the real record.

Key Document

DRVM Response to Petition – Aug 14, 2025

➜ 

⸻

4. My Notice of Whistleblower Filings & Retaliation (August 15)

I responded immediately.

I filed a Notice of Whistleblower Filings, telling the judge:

• I have active whistleblower cases with IRS, DOL, and SEC

• IRS issued three claim numbers tied to Sanofi, Chattem, and Quten

• Retaliation began only after the whistleblower submissions

• Everything respondents were doing, including their federal filing — was part of that retaliation

This put the truth on the record.

Key Document

Notice of Whistleblower Filings – Aug 15, 2025

➜

⸻

5. Notice of False Claims (August 18)

DRVM claimed:

• JAMS had “removed” parties (false)

• The other entities were “unrelated” (false)

• My naming of the structure was unfounded (false)

I filed a Supplemental Notice of False Claims.

Key Document

Notice of False Claims – Aug 18, 2025

➜ 

⸻

6. Judge Baggio’s First Order: “Serve ALL Respondents” (August 18)

On the same day, Judge Baggio issued a major order:

I was authorized to serve ALL respondents using the U.S. Marshals Service.

My filing fee was waived (IFP granted).

The case moved forward.

This made the entire structure — Sanofi, Chattem, Quten, AMJ, the Boutros family, Chopra — officially part of the case.

Key Document

Order Granting IFP & Authorizing Service – Aug 18, 2025

➜ 

⸻

6A. Fisher Phillips’ Ex Parte Email to the Judge (September 2)

Fisher Phillips’ Improper Ex Parte Communication with the Court

On September 2, 2025, while service of the petition was still underway, counsel for DRVM LLC (Fisher Phillips) sent an email directly to Judge Baggio’s chambers without copying Petitioner and without filing any motion on the docket. In that communication, counsel sought case-specific procedural guidance regarding whether DRVM was required to file an Answer or Rule 12 motion in response to Petitioner’s application under the Federal Arbitration Act.

This ex parte communication occurred outside the public record and deprived Petitioner of any opportunity to respond. The Court declined to provide the requested guidance and, on September 4, 2025, expressly directed that all communications with the Court must include all parties and that any request for assistance must be made by motion filed on the docket.

Although the Court promptly corrected the impropriety, the episode reflects an attempt to shape the procedural posture of the case through off-docket communications rather than through adversarial motion practice.

⸻

6B. September 4: The Judge Issues an Order Based on Their Email

Because the email wasn’t filed publicly and I wasn’t copied, the judge understandably acted on Fisher Phillips’ representation.

On September 4, Judge Baggio issued an order stating:

DRVM does not need to file anything further until all other respondents appear.

This order reshaped the entire docket.

Fisher Phillips’ ex parte message was now a judicial instruction.

⸻

6C. That Ex Parte Move Set Up Their September 19 Docket-Reset Motion

Two weeks later, relying on the confusion they created, Fisher Phillips filed a motion asking to:

• Reset ALL deadlines

• Erase missed appearances

• And treat DRVM’s earlier response as sufficient for every respondent —

even the respondents they claimed were “unrelated.”

They used the September 4 order as fuel to rewrite the docket.

This was the same strategy I had fought in arbitration:

• Silence → procedural manipulation → control the narrative.

This sequence — September 2, 4, and 19 — was one of the clearest examples of coordinated obstruction in the entire case.

They also filed for an appearance on AMJ Services LLC, after several months of claiming no relation.

⸻

7. My Motion to Deem Service Effective (September 17)

The U.S. Marshals attempted service at Sanofi and Chattem’s headquarters.

Both companies refused to accept service.

I filed a Motion to Deem Service Effective or Authorize Alternative Service, pointing out:

• They received JAMS notices at the same address

• Corporations cannot dodge federal litigation by hiding behind receptionists

• Service was legally sufficient

Key Document

Motion to Deem Service Effective – Sept 17

➜ 

⸻

8. Miller Nash Appears for Deepak Chopra (September 17)

A major law firm — Miller Nash — entered an appearance for Deepak Chopra.

This disproved the narrative that the upstream parties were “unrelated.”

Key Document

Notice of Appearance for Deepak Chopra – Sept 17

➜ 

⸻

9. DRVM Tries to Rewrite the Entire Case (September 19)

Using the judge’s September 4 order as a foundation, DRVM filed a motion asking to:

• Reset deadlines

• Eliminate defaults

• And effectively let DRVM represent all respondents

This would have erased months of misconduct.

Key Document

DRVM Motion to Correct Docket – Sept 19

➜ 

⸻

10. My Opposition to DRVM’s Attempt (September 22)

I filed a complete rebuttal, explaining:

• DRVM cannot speak for parties it denies being connected to

• Defaults are the natural result of refusal to appear

• Court orders cannot be weaponized to erase history

• And the structure was now undeniable

Key Document

Opposition to DRVM’s Motion – Sept 22

➜ 

⸻

11. Deepak Chopra Files a Motion to Dismiss (September 22)

Deepak filed a motion claiming:

• No contacts with Oregon

• No connections to any respondents

• No idea who anyone was

• And that he first learned about this case when a receptionist received documents

But the corporate filings, trust records, and address matches told a different story.

Key Document

Motion to Dismiss – Deepak Chopra – Sept 22

➜ 

⸻

12. My Opposition to Chopra’s Motion (September 25)

I filed a detailed opposition showing:

• His name appears across Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Florida filings

• His foundation received six months of JAMS notices

• He contradicted his own declaration

• The IRS is using the same evidence he calls “unauthentic”

Key Document

Opposition to Chopra’s Motion – Sept 25

➜ 

⸻

13. Chopra’s Reply (October 1): The Coordinated Narrative Exposed

Deepak’s reply:

• Used the same language as DRVM

• Attacked me personally

• Dismissed IRS-reviewed evidence as “word salad”

• Shifted from defending himself to defending the entire structure

This revealed coordination at the highest level.

Key Document

Chopra Reply – Oct 1

➜ 

⸻

14. My Sur-Reply & Motion for Leave (October 6)

Because Chopra introduced new arguments in his reply, I filed a Motion for Leave and a Sur-Reply explaining:

• The contradictions

• The misrepresentations

• The need for jurisdictional discovery

• And why the filings cannot be dismissed at this stage

Key Documents

Motion for Leave – Oct 6

Sur-Reply – Oct 6

➜ 

⸻

15. The Judge’s Ruling (November 24, 2025)

After reviewing all filings, defaults, motions, and the arbitration record, Judge Baggio ruled:

DRVM LLC must go to arbitration.

All other respondents are released and cannot be compelled into arbitration.

This decision:

• Removed the shield arbitration created

• Freed the fraud claims, concealment claims, and whistleblower matters for federal litigation

• Confirmed that the upstream structure cannot hide behind DRVM

• Split the case into two tracks:

Track 1: Arbitration

• Only DRVM

• Limited wage-related issues

Track 2: Federal Litigation

• Sanofi

• Chattem

• Quten

• AMJ Services

• Maged Boutros

• Deepak Chopra

• Marie-Laurie Amiard-Boutros

• And all related entities

This ruling opened the door to the full federal complaint.

Key Document

Order Compelling DRVM Only – Nov 24, 2025

➜ 

⸻

Where the Petition Phase Ends

The Petition to Compel accomplished exactly what it needed to:

• The real actors were forced out into the open

• The entire structure became public

• The arbitration shell collapsed

• And the path to a federal fraud case was cleared

The is the end of the petition to compel arbitration.

And now, while arbitration against DRVM continues, the real fight has moved into federal court — where concealment ends and discovery begins.