Zioness Movement, Inc. v. The Lawfare Project, Inc.
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:21-cv-07429
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Zioness Movement v. The Lawfare Project, Judge Hellerstein denied arbitration because Zioness never agreed to arbitrate.
Zioness Movement, Inc. was not required to arbitrate its dispute with The Lawfare Project, Inc.; the case proceeded toward an answer and a status conference.
What happened
Zioness Movement, Inc. sued The Lawfare Project, Inc., which asked the court to require arbitration. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in detail.
The court denied The Lawfare Project’s motion to compel arbitration. It found that Zioness had not made or signed an arbitration agreement with The Lawfare Project and could not be required to arbitrate without consent.
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein also rejected the defendant’s arguments based on piercing the corporate veil and direct-benefits estoppel. He ordered the defendant to file an answer by April 7, 2022, and ordered the parties to attend a May 20, 2022 status conference and submit a joint case-management plan.
The detailed version
- Zioness Movement, Inc. v. The Lawfare Project, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-07429
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Mar. 17, 2022
Background
The court held oral argument on The Lawfare Project’s motion to compel arbitration. The opinion states that Zioness had not made or signed an agreement to arbitrate with The Lawfare Project.
The Court’s Analysis
The court held that Zioness could not be required to arbitrate the dispute without consenting to arbitration. It rejected the defendant’s veil-piercing theory as insufficient to compel arbitration.
The court also rejected the defendant’s direct-benefits-estoppel theory. It stated that Zioness’s claim did not depend on Berman’s employment contract and that Zioness was not a third-party beneficiary of that contract.
Disposition and Further Proceedings
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied the motion to compel arbitration. He ordered The Lawfare Project to file its answer by April 7, 2022. He also ordered the parties to appear for a status conference on May 20, 2022, submit a joint proposed case-management plan by May 18, 2022, and provide the court with a list of expected counsel and their contact information by that date. The Clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 7.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.