Brazzano v. Thomson Hine LLP
- Andrew Carter
- 1:24-cv-01420
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Brazzano v. Thomson Hine LLP, Judge Carter ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs about arbitration motions and the EFAA.
Rebecca Brazzano and defendants Thomson Hine LLP, Richard Anthony DePalma, Deborah Zider Read, and Thomas Lawrence Feher.
What happened
In Brazzano v. Thomson Hine LLP, the court asked Rebecca Brazzano and the defendants to provide additional briefing. The request concerns a recent decision by another judge in the Southern District of New York.
The parties must address whether that decision’s plausibility standard applies to motions seeking to compel arbitration when the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act is invoked. Each supplemental letter brief may be no more than five pages and must be limited to that issue.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. ordered the parties to file their supplemental briefs by February 25, 2025. This order did not decide the arbitration issue or the parties’ underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Brazzano v. Thomson Hine LLP · No. 1:24-cv-01420
- Andrew Carter
- Feb. 18, 2025
Order
After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the court requested supplemental letter briefs addressing a recent opinion by Judge Liman in a related case. The court specifically asked the parties to discuss whether Judge Liman’s holding about the plausibility standard applies to motions to compel arbitration when the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA) is invoked.
The court instructed the parties to limit their briefs to that issue because it had already thoroughly reviewed the briefs previously filed. Each supplemental letter brief may not exceed five pages, and the parties must file them by February 25, 2025.
Disposition
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. entered a procedural briefing order requesting supplemental submissions. The order did not rule on whether arbitration should be compelled, did not decide the EFAA issue, and did not resolve the parties’ claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.