Porricelli v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:19-cv-07992
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Porricelli v. Midland Credit Management, Judge Engelmayer referred the claims to arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration.
Lisa Porricelli and Midland Credit Management, Inc.; the case is paused while Porricelli’s claims proceed to arbitration.
What happened
In Porricelli v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Lisa Porricelli’s lawyers said defendants had produced an agreement and related documents establishing their right to arbitration. Porricelli therefore no longer opposed defendants’ request to compel arbitration.
The remaining question was whether the court should dismiss the case or pause it while arbitration proceeded. The court relied on Second Circuit guidance stating that a stay is required when all claims are sent to arbitration and a party requests a stay.
Judge Engelmayer referred Porricelli’s claims to arbitration and stayed the case. The parties must send the court a joint status letter every 90 days, and the clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion at docket 19.
The detailed version
- Porricelli v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-07992
- Paul Engelmayer
- June 5, 2020
Background
Lisa Porricelli was represented by counsel in this action against Midland Credit Management, Inc. Defendants submitted a “forward flow agreement” and related documents after the court’s May 27 order. The court stated that these materials clearly established defendants’ right to arbitration. Porricelli then withdrew her opposition to defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.
Issue
Because Porricelli no longer opposed arbitration, the remaining issue was whether the court should dismiss the case or stay it while the parties arbitrated the claims. A stay pauses the court case without ending it.
Court’s reasoning
The court relied on Second Circuit precedent interpreting the Federal Arbitration Act, a federal law governing arbitration. That precedent states that when all claims are sent to arbitration and a party requests a stay, the law requires a stay. Porricelli requested a stay, and the court concluded that staying the case would allow prompt arbitration and postpone appellate review until after arbitration concluded.
Disposition
The court referred Porricelli’s claims to arbitration and stayed the case pending the outcome of arbitration. The parties were directed to submit a joint status letter every 90 days, measured from the date of the order, reporting on the arbitration’s status. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion pending at docket 19. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.