Lonstein Law Office, P.C. v. Evanston Insurance Company
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-09712
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lonstein Law Office v. Evanston Insurance, Judge Liman dismissed the case without prejudice after plaintiffs did not pay arbitration fees.
The dismissal affected the plaintiffs' remaining case against AT&T Services, Inc.; the arbitration had ended because the plaintiffs did not pay the arbitration fees. The claims against Evanston Insurance Company had already been dismissed with prejudice, and the court had previously dismissed the complaint against Evanston and Markel Service Incorporated for failure to state a cause of action.
What happened
Lonstein Law Office, P.C., Julie Lonstein, and Wayne D. Lonstein sued Evanston Insurance Company, Markel Service Incorporated, and AT&T Services, Inc. The court had required the claims against AT&T to go to arbitration and had dismissed claims against Evanston and Markel.
The arbitration against AT&T ended because the plaintiffs did not pay the arbitration fees. The court asked why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice, and the plaintiffs said they could not afford the fees and would not respond further. AT&T, through its successor in interest, DIRECTV, LLC, requested dismissal without prejudice.
The court dismissed the case without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to close it. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered the order on July 11, 2024.
The detailed version
- Lonstein Law Office, P.C. v. Evanston Insurance Company · No. 1:20-cv-09712
- Lewis Liman
- July 11, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs are Lonstein Law Office, P.C., Julie Lonstein, and Wayne D. Lonstein. The defendants named in the caption are Evanston Insurance Company, Markel Service Incorporated, and AT&T Services, Inc.
On January 6, 2022, the court granted AT&T's motion to compel arbitration, meaning it required the claims against AT&T to be decided in arbitration rather than in court. The court stayed the case against AT&T while the arbitration proceeded. The court later granted Evanston and Markel's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. On May 12, 2022, the court dismissed the claims against Evanston in the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice.
Arbitration and Order to Show Cause
On June 25, 2024, the parties informed the court that the arbitration brought by the plaintiffs against AT&T had been closed by the arbitrators because the plaintiffs had not paid the arbitration fees. On June 26, 2024, the court ordered the parties to explain why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice and closed because of the unpaid fees.
The plaintiffs responded that they could not afford the arbitration fees and would not make a submission responding to the court's order. AT&T Services, through its successor in interest, DIRECTV, LLC, asked the court to dismiss the case without prejudice.
Ruling
The court dismissed the case without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to close it. The order did not decide the underlying claims against AT&T; those claims had been sent to arbitration, and the arbitration ended because of non-payment of fees. Judge Lewis J. Liman signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.