Feeman v. IT
- Lewis Liman
- 1:25-cv-03806
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Robert Feeman v. Bridge IT, Judge Liman set a conference to discuss whether the defendant waived arbitration; he did not rule on the motions.
The plaintiffs and Bridge IT, Inc., because both sides were directed to prepare to discuss dismissal, arbitration, and possible waiver at the September 16, 2025 conference.
What happened
Robert Feeman, et al. v. Bridge IT, Inc. concerns the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint or, alternatively, require arbitration. The court scheduled a conference for September 16, 2025.
The court instructed the parties to be prepared to discuss whether it needed to decide the arbitration request or instead should treat the defendant’s arguments as waiving arbitration or enforcement of a class-action procedure. The court did not grant or deny either motion in this order.
Judge Liman said the court intended to address the motion quickly and efficiently. The order describes possible consequences of a future ruling but makes no ruling on the case’s merits or on arbitration.
The detailed version
- Feeman v. IT · No. 1:25-cv-03806
- Lewis Liman
- Sept. 8, 2025
Background
The case was scheduled for a conference on September 16, 2025. Bridge IT, Inc. moved to dismiss the complaint or, alternatively, to compel arbitration. The opinion identifies that motion as Docket No. 32.
What the Court Ordered
The court directed the parties to be prepared to address whether it needed to decide the motion to compel arbitration. The court also directed them to discuss whether Bridge IT’s arguments should instead be treated as a waiver of its right to arbitrate or of its right to enforce the class-action mechanism.
The court described two possible consequences. If it granted the motion to dismiss, the case would be fully and finally resolved on the merits. If it denied the motion to dismiss, Bridge IT and the plaintiffs would be barred from later arguing that the case should proceed in arbitration. These were described as possible consequences, not as rulings made in this order.
Disposition
The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss or the motion to compel arbitration. It set directions for the upcoming conference and stated that the court intended to address the motion expeditiously and efficiently. 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.