Benson v. Voss Events, Inc.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:20-cv-06874
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Benson v. Voss Events, Judge Failla ordered targeted discovery because the parties disputed whether they had a binding arbitration agreement.
Chancelor Dayne Benson and Voss Events, Inc.; the order pauses the defendant’s response deadline and all other fact discovery while targeted arbitration-related discovery proceeds.
What happened
Benson v. Voss Events, Inc. involved the defendant’s anticipated request to require arbitration. After discussing that request with the parties and reviewing the record, the court found a factual dispute about whether the parties had a binding arbitration agreement.
The court did not decide whether an arbitration agreement existed. Instead, it ordered limited, expedited discovery focused on that question and paused the defendant’s deadline to respond to the amended complaint.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla required the parties to complete the targeted discovery within 60 days. The defendant must then tell the court in writing whether it will seek to require arbitration or otherwise respond to the amended complaint; all other fact discovery is also paused.
The detailed version
- Benson v. Voss Events, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-06874
- Katherine Failla
- Feb. 24, 2021
Background
Voss Events, Inc. anticipated filing a motion to compel arbitration, meaning a request that the court require the dispute to be decided in arbitration rather than in court. The court discussed that anticipated motion with the parties on February 23, 2021.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that a motion to compel arbitration is evaluated under a standard similar to the standard used for summary judgment. After reviewing the record, the court found a disputed issue of fact about whether a binding arbitration agreement existed between Chancelor Dayne Benson and Voss Events, Inc.
Order
The court ordered limited, targeted discovery into whether an arbitration agreement existed. The parties must complete that expedited discovery within 60 days of the order. Afterward, Voss Events, Inc. must inform the court in writing whether it intends to move to compel arbitration or otherwise respond to the amended complaint. The court stayed the defendant’s obligation to respond to the amended complaint while that discovery occurs, and it also stayed all other fact discovery in the case.
The order did not decide whether a binding arbitration agreement exists or whether arbitration will ultimately be required.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.