Streamlined Consultants, Inc. v. Forward Financing LLC
- Nelson Roman
- 7:21-cv-10838
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Streamlined Consultants v. Forward Financing, Judge Roman granted leave to seek a stay of parallel arbitration and set briefing deadlines.
Streamlined Consultants, Inc., Moshe Schoenwald, and Forward Financing LLC; the order allowed the plaintiffs to seek a pause in the arbitration but did not decide whether the arbitration would be stayed.
What happened
In Streamlined Consultants, Inc. v. Forward Financing LLC, the plaintiffs asked to file a motion seeking to pause an arbitration that Forward Financing had started while the federal case was pending. They argued that the agreement was invalid because it was allegedly usurious and that continuing both proceedings could produce conflicting decisions and waste resources.
Forward Financing opposed the request. It argued that it had not been properly served, that the Federal Arbitration Act governed, and that the plaintiffs’ challenge concerned the agreement as a whole rather than the arbitration clause. It also argued that the arbitration covered its breach-of-contract claims and that the plaintiffs’ lawsuit did not automatically pause the arbitration.
The court waived the required pre-motion conference and granted the plaintiffs leave to file a motion to stay the parallel arbitration. It set deadlines for the parties’ papers, directed them to provide courtesy copies, and ordered the Clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 7. Judge Nelson Roman did not decide the requested stay in this order.
The detailed version
- Streamlined Consultants, Inc. v. Forward Financing LLC · No. 7:21-cv-10838
- Nelson Roman
- Mar. 9, 2022
Background
Streamlined Consultants, Inc. and Moshe Schoenwald asked for permission to file a motion to stay, meaning pause, parallel arbitration proceedings brought by Forward Financing LLC. The arbitration concerned claims that Forward Financing identified as breach-of-contract claims under an agreement between the parties. The plaintiffs’ letter stated that they were challenging the agreement as invalid because of alleged usury and that the federal action and arbitration involved the same parties and claims.
The plaintiffs argued that the arbitration should be paused because the court was already considering Forward Financing’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. They also argued that allowing both proceedings to continue could lead to conflicting rulings, increase costs, and waste judicial resources. Forward Financing opposed the request. It argued that the plaintiffs had not properly served it, that the Federal Arbitration Act applied, and that the plaintiffs had not shown a basis for stopping the arbitration. Forward Financing also argued that a challenge to the agreement as a whole was for the arbitrator to decide and that its breach-of-contract claims fell within the arbitration clause.
Court’s action
The court did not decide whether to stay the arbitration. Instead, it waived the pre-motion conference requirement and granted the plaintiffs leave to file a motion requesting that relief. The court set the following schedule: the plaintiffs’ moving papers were due to be served on April 8, 2022; Forward Financing’s opposition was due to be served on May 9, 2022; and the plaintiffs’ reply was due to be served on May 24, 2022. All papers were to be filed on May 24, 2022. The parties also had to provide physical and electronic courtesy copies under the court’s instructions. Judge Nelson Roman directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 7.
Result
The order granted permission to file the motion and established briefing procedures; it did not grant or deny the requested stay of arbitration and did not resolve the parties’ underlying arbitration disputes.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.