Rimini v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
- John Cronan
- 1:21-cv-07209
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rimini v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Judge Cronan denied Rimini’s arbitration motion and denied a related stay as moot.
Thomas Rimini and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; the court case was not compelled into the ongoing Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration based on the ruling described.
What happened
In Rimini v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Thomas Rimini asked the court to send the case to an ongoing Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration. He said an arbitration agreement existed and that combining the matters would save time and resources.
Rimini represented himself and stated that he was an attorney by training but lacked substantial litigation experience outside this matter. The opinion says the party seeking arbitration must show that a valid arbitration agreement exists.
The court found that Rimini had not made that showing. Judge John Cronan denied the motion to compel arbitration and denied the accompanying motion to stay as moot. The court directed the clerk to close the two motions identified by docket numbers 8 and 15.
The detailed version
- Rimini v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. · No. 1:21-cv-07209
- John Cronan
- Oct. 25, 2021
Background
Thomas Rimini, representing himself, asked the court to compel arbitration of his dispute with J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. through an ongoing arbitration before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Rimini stated that the parties had an arbitration agreement and that the court case could be handled through the existing arbitration. He also cited personal scheduling considerations.
The opinion states that Rimini is an attorney by training but was not an attorney while employed by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. The court therefore noted that, although people representing themselves ordinarily receive special consideration, Rimini was an attorney.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a motion to compel arbitration requires deciding whether the parties agreed to arbitrate and, if so, whether the agreement covers the claims at issue. The party seeking arbitration has the burden of showing that a valid arbitration agreement exists.
The court concluded that Rimini had made no such showing. The opinion does not describe or decide the underlying claims in the lawsuit.
Disposition
The motion to compel arbitration was denied. The accompanying motion to stay was denied as moot. The clerk was directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 8 and 15.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.