Zhang v. Touro College
- Katherine Failla
- 1:24-cv-06215
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Zhang v. Touro College, Judge Failla scheduled a conference on arbitration and allowed a short reply without deciding the motion.
Chi Zhang and the Touro defendants, including Touro College, Touro University, and Touro College of Osteopathic Medicine.
What happened
Chi Zhang sued Touro College and related defendants after his dismissal from Touro College of Osteopathic Medicine. He asked to file a motion requiring arbitration of his claims, and the Touro defendants opposed that request.
The defendants argued that Zhang used the wrong arbitration provider, waited too long, released his claims, failed to follow required procedures, and waived arbitration by filing and litigating in court. The court did not decide whether any of those arguments was correct.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla scheduled a December 19, 2024, conference about Zhang’s request and allowed Zhang to file a reply of no more than three pages by December 10. The court directed the clerk to terminate the pending request at docket entry 17.
The detailed version
- Zhang v. Touro College · No. 1:24-cv-06215
- Katherine Failla
- Dec. 3, 2024
Background
Chi Zhang filed a lawsuit concerning his dismissal from Touro College of Osteopathic Medicine’s Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine program. The case was removed from New York state court to the Southern District of New York. Zhang later amended his complaint, leaving a misrepresentation claim under New York law, according to the defendants’ filing.
At the same time he served the original lawsuit, Zhang served the Touro defendants with a demand for arbitration filed with JAMS. On November 21, 2024, he asked the court for permission to file a motion to compel arbitration and requested a pre-motion conference.
The Defendants’ Opposition
The Touro defendants asked the court to deny permission to file the motion. They argued that the 2013 Touro College of Osteopathic Medicine student handbook required arbitration through the American Arbitration Association, while Zhang filed with JAMS. They also argued that the handbook required an arbitration demand within 90 days after the dispute arose and that Zhang’s 2024 demand was too late because his dismissal occurred in 2018.
The defendants further argued that a 2014 Memorandum of Understanding and Release barred Zhang’s claims, that the 2023 student handbook did not apply to him, and that he had not completed the mediation required by that handbook. Finally, they argued that Zhang waived any right to compel arbitration by filing a court action, litigating jurisdiction and remand issues, and waiting to raise arbitration in this case. These were the defendants’ arguments; the court did not rule on their merits.
Court’s Action
Judge Katherine Polk Failla did not decide whether Zhang could compel arbitration or whether the defendants’ arguments barred arbitration. Instead, after reviewing Zhang’s request and the defendants’ opposition, the court scheduled a pre-motion conference for December 19, 2024, at 3:00 p.m. The court also allowed Zhang to file a reply of no more than three pages by December 10, 2024, because the defendants’ opposition exceeded the three-page limit in the court’s practice rules.
The court directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 17. The order therefore addressed the next procedural steps and did not resolve the arbitration issue or the underlying claims.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.