Stone v. Exos Human Capital, LLC
- John Cronan
- 1:24-cv-03548
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Stone v. Exos Human Capital, LLC, Judge Cronan scheduled argument on arbitration and permitted a possible surreply, without deciding the motion.
Phillip Stone, the defendants, and the parties’ ongoing dispute over Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.
What happened
In Stone v. Exos Human Capital, LLC, the defendants asked the court to compel arbitration. The opinion does not decide that request.
The court scheduled oral argument for June 18, 2025, and directed the parties to address whether New Jersey Supreme Court rules from Atalese v. U.S. Legal Services Group, L.P. are overridden by the Federal Arbitration Act.
Judge Cronan also allowed, but did not require, Stone to file a surreply of no more than 5,000 words by June 10, 2025. The order scheduled further proceedings and made no ruling on the motion to compel arbitration.
The detailed version
- Stone v. Exos Human Capital, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-03548
- John Cronan
- May 20, 2025
Order
The court issued a scheduling order concerning Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, Dkt. 24. It scheduled oral argument for June 18, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 12D at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York.
Issue Identified for Argument
The court directed the parties to be prepared to discuss whether, and to what extent, the rules applied by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Atalese v. U.S. Legal Services Group, L.P., 99 A.3d 306 (N.J. 2014), are preempted—meaning overridden—by the Federal Arbitration Act. The order cited Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, Kindred Nursing Centers Limited Partnership v. Clark, and AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion as relevant authorities.
Surreply
The court stated that Plaintiff may, but is not required to, file a surreply of no more than 5,000 words by June 10, 2025. The surreply may address the arbitration-preemption issue and arguments raised in Part I.A. of Defendants’ reply brief, Dkt. 29.
Disposition
The order does not grant or deny the motion to compel arbitration and does not decide whether the parties must arbitrate. It schedules oral argument and permits a possible additional filing.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.