Cojocaru v. City University of New York
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:19-cv-05428
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cojocaru v. City University of New York, Judge Hellerstein stayed the case until arbitration ends, cancelled court dates, and declined to order arbitration discovery.
The order affects all parties to the action, including plaintiffs Claudia Cojocaru and Naomi Haber, defendant and counterclaim plaintiff Ric Curtis, and City University of New York and the other crossclaim and third-party defendants.
What happened
Cojocaru v. City University of New York involves claims and counterclaims connected to Ric Curtis and City University of New York. Curtis asked the court to lift a stay on discovery, while Curtis and CUNY were participating in arbitration under their contract.
The court said discovery for the arbitration should first be requested from the arbitrator, who controls the arbitration process. It also said CUNY’s pending motion to dismiss could significantly affect the lawsuit, making it premature to address that motion while arbitration was ongoing.
Judge Hellerstein kept the entire action stayed until arbitration is complete, cancelled all pending court dates, and set a March 4, 2022 status conference to review what proceedings, if any, would remain. The Clerk was instructed to terminate docket entries 183 and 196.
The detailed version
- Cojocaru v. City University of New York · No. 1:19-cv-05428
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Aug. 11, 2021
Background
The case includes plaintiffs Claudia Cojocaru and Naomi Haber, defendant and counterclaim plaintiff Ric Curtis, and City University of New York and others as crossclaim and third-party defendants. Curtis asked the court to lift a discovery stay that Judge Hellerstein had imposed on May 7, 2021. Curtis and CUNY were engaged in arbitration under their contract; an arbitrator had been appointed, and the first arbitration session was scheduled for November 9, 2021.
The opinion states that the arbitration’s outcome could affect the lawsuit. It gives Curtis’s termination as an example: if the arbitrator found that the termination was justified, Curtis might not have a viable claim on that issue. Curtis had also submitted a long list of discovery requests that he wanted to use in the arbitration.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that discovery requests for use in arbitration should first be directed to the arbitrator. Arbitrators generally control their own proceedings, and discovery before the arbitration is governed by the applicable arbitration rules and the arbitrator. The court also stated that discovery in arbitration is more limited than discovery in a court proceeding and that court-ordered discovery supporting arbitration is available only in extraordinary circumstances.
The court further noted that CUNY’s motion to dismiss, scheduled for argument on September 30, 2021, was likely to substantially affect the lawsuit. Because arbitration and the motion to dismiss could change the course of the case, the court found it premature to consider the motion to dismiss at that time.
Order
Judge Hellerstein ordered that the entire action remain stayed until the arbitration is complete. The order cancelled all pending court dates and directed all parties to attend a status conference on March 4, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., to review the status of the matter and determine whether any further proceedings were necessary. The Clerk was instructed to terminate docket entries 183 and 196. The order does not expressly state that Curtis’s request to lift the stay was denied; instead, it continues the stay and directs that arbitration-related discovery requests be made to the arbitrator.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.