Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/16/2018 in all areas

  1. Just got word today- the judge issued an order already! No hearing! Here's the exact verbiage: "IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this proceeding is stayed to allow Defendant opportunity to initiate arbitration. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Defendant does not initiate arbitration within sixty (60) days from the date of entry of this Order, Plaintiff is entitled to file Notice with the Court and this case will be restored to this Court’s active docket " Looks like I'm off to fill out that AAA arbitration form I printed out.
    3 points
  2. The only thing I see is under “Law and Argument”. At the end you state “Harsco at 415”. Harsco should be italicized. Except for the spacing issues mentioned by @Brotherskeeper I think it looks fine .
    2 points
  3. Ok, so I went up and filed, however my favorite clerk was not in the office. I ended up getting someone else, and a person in training. I submitted my paper work and they both seemed baffled lol. She only time stamped the Motion, but she did take everything else. Lets hope it goes where it needs to. I think I will call my clerk Monday to follow up.
    1 point
  4. If your response does not include an argument specific to the above delegation provision, they can argue that the arbitration clause as a whole is unconscionable under state law. Can you explain to me in what this actually means? How can this be argued if they were ordered to arbitration and what the arbitrator rules are valid? It is a little bit complex. When there is a motion to compel arbitration, courts have concluded that, unless the parties have agreed otherwise, "procedural arbitrability" will be decided by the arbitrator and "substantive arbitrabilit
    1 point
  5. That's right. I did mention that issue about a third of the way down in this post. They introduce that quote in paragraph 3 with the language "any matter brought in Small Claims court". "Any" is clearly wrong. The definitions of "we" and "you" in the arbitration agreement are particularly important here, not only to interpret this language but also to demonstrate that the arbitration agreement is enforceable against Midland - which they deny elsewhere in the motion.
    1 point
  6. @pockets66 I'm not sure about your previous post, but here's something in the Motion to Reconsider that I noticed. I don't know if it's already been addressed, so here it is. It's in regard to paragraph 3 in the MTR. They quote from the cardmember agreement. 3. "We agree not to invoke our right to arbitrate any individual claim you bring in small claims court or an equivalent court so long as the Claim is pending only in that court." They claim that "Under the terms of the CMA, any matter brought in Small Claims court is not subject to arbitration." And also, "Per the C
    1 point