Dylan 140 LLC v. Figueroa
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:19-cv-02897
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Dylan 140 LLC v. Figueroa, Judge Kaplan received Dylan’s request to pause arbitration during its appeal of an order compelling arbitration.
Dylan 140 LLC and Local 32BJ Funds are the parties directly affected by the requested stay of arbitration; the provided text does not state the effect on any other party.
What happened
Dylan 140 LLC v. Figueroa concerns Dylan’s request to pause an arbitration involving Local 32BJ Funds while Dylan appealed an order compelling arbitration. The filing says the arbitration was scheduled for March 19, 2020.
Dylan argued that the collective bargaining agreement did not require it to arbitrate its dispute with the Funds, that the agreement was unclear, and that proceeding with arbitration could cause wasted resources and complicate the appeal. Dylan also argued that the Funds would suffer little harm from a delay and that the public interest favored preserving the parties’ contract rights.
The provided text is a request submitted to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, not a clear ruling. It does not state whether Judge Kaplan granted or denied the requested stay.
The detailed version
- Dylan 140 LLC v. Figueroa · No. 1:19-cv-02897
- Lewis Kaplan
- Feb. 18, 2020
Nature of the filing
The provided text is a letter from counsel for Dylan 140 LLC requesting a stay—an order temporarily pausing an action—of arbitration while Dylan appealed the court’s January 7, 2020 order. The text does not contain a clear ruling on the stay request.
Background
The filing states that the court had affirmed a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation granting Local 32BJ Funds’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. It says an arbitration was scheduled for March 19, 2020, at the Office of the Contract Arbitrator. Dylan filed a notice of appeal from the January 7 order on February 5, 2020.
Dylan’s arguments
Dylan argued that the collective bargaining agreement did not require Dylan and the Funds to arbitrate the payment dispute. According to Dylan, the agreement’s arbitration provision applied to disputes between Dylan and the union, not disputes between Dylan and the Funds. Dylan also argued that the agreement was ambiguous and that discovery and consideration of outside evidence were necessary to interpret it. Dylan further relied on the first-filed rule, arguing that its court action preceded the Funds’ arbitration proceedings.
Dylan asserted that it would suffer irreparable harm if forced to arbitrate while pursuing its appeal. It argued that the Funds would experience only a delay, not substantial injury, and that the public interest favored avoiding potentially unnecessary arbitration and preserving the parties’ contractual rights.
Disposition
The text ends with Dylan’s request that the court stay the arbitration pending the appeal. Although it bears Judge Lewis A. Kaplan’s signature, the provided text does not state that the stay was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved. No disposition is reported here.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.