Streamlined Consultants, Inc. v. Forward Financing LLC
- Nelson Roman
- 7:21-cv-10838
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Streamlined Consultants v. Forward Financing, Judge Roman ordered a response to Plaintiffs’ request to stay parallel arbitration.
Streamlined Consultants, Inc. and Moshe Schoenwald sought to pause the arbitration; Forward Financing LLC was ordered to respond to their letter motion by March 9, 2022.
What happened
Streamlined Consultants, Inc. and Moshe Schoenwald asked the court for a conference or permission to file a motion seeking to pause an arbitration started by Forward Financing LLC. Plaintiffs said the arbitration involved the same parties and claims as the federal case.
Plaintiffs argued that the agreement was invalid because it was allegedly usurious and that this issue could prevent arbitration. They also argued that continuing both proceedings could produce conflicting decisions and waste time and money.
Judge Nelson S. Roman did not decide whether to pause the arbitration, whether the agreement was valid, or whether the dispute could be arbitrated. The court ordered Forward Financing LLC to respond to Plaintiffs’ letter motion by March 9, 2022.
The detailed version
- Streamlined Consultants, Inc. v. Forward Financing LLC · No. 7:21-cv-10838
- Nelson Roman
- Mar. 2, 2022
Background
Streamlined Consultants, Inc. and Moshe Schoenwald asked for a pre-motion conference or permission to file a motion to stay—pause—an arbitration that Forward Financing LLC had initiated. The arbitration was identified as American Arbitration Association Case No. 01-22-0000-3640. Plaintiffs stated that the arbitration involved the same parties and claims as the federal action.
Plaintiffs said they were challenging the validity of the parties’ agreement, including on the ground that it was allegedly usurious. They argued that the agreement’s validity and the scope of any arbitration requirement were issues already raised in the federal case. Plaintiffs also argued that allowing the later-started arbitration to continue could lead to conflicting rulings and duplicate costs and proceedings.
Court’s Action
The court did not rule on whether the arbitration should be stayed. It also did not decide whether the agreement was invalid, whether the dispute was arbitrable, or whether Forward Financing LLC’s pending motion to dismiss and compel arbitration should be granted or denied.
The court ordered Defendant to respond to Plaintiffs’ letter motion on or before March 9, 2022. The order therefore addressed the next procedural step rather than the underlying arbitration issues.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.