Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 3, 2022

In Re: Second Wave IBM Arbitration Agreement Litigation

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:21-cv-09574
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In re Second Wave IBM Arbitration Agreement Litigation: Judge Furman ordered IBM to clarify whether its dismissal motion applies to Sharon Gilmore alone or all plaintiffs.

Who this affects

IBM, Sharon Gilmore, and the other plaintiffs in the cases consolidated under 21-CV-9574.

What happened

In re Second Wave IBM Arbitration Agreement Litigation concerns cases consolidated under one case number while retaining separate identities. IBM filed a motion to dismiss Sharon Gilmore’s amended complaint.

Because the consolidated cases remain separate, the court ordered IBM to state whether its motion applies only to Gilmore’s complaint or to all plaintiffs in the related cases.

Judge Jesse M. Furman required IBM to file that clarification by February 10, 2022. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss or the underlying claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
In Re: Second Wave IBM Arbitration Agreement Litigation · No. 1:21-cv-09574
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Feb. 3, 2022

Background

The cases in this litigation were consolidated under case number 21-CV-9574, but each case retained its separate identity. On January 31, 2022, International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff Sharon Gilmore’s amended complaint.

Order

The court ordered IBM to file a letter by February 10, 2022, stating whether its motion to dismiss was directed only at Gilmore’s amended complaint or applied to all plaintiffs in the cases consolidated under 21-CV-9574.

Effect of the Order

This order addressed the scope of IBM’s motion and did not rule on whether the motion should be granted or denied. Judge Jesse M. Furman also did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.