Global Tech Industries Group, Inc. v. Go Fun Group Holdings, Ltd
- 1:17-cv-03727
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Global Tech Industries Group v. Go Fun Group, the court granted arbitration and dismissed the action; the judge is not identified.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the action are affected: the plaintiffs obtained an order compelling arbitration, and the action involving the defendants was dismissed.
What happened
In Global Tech Industries Group, Inc. v. Go Fun Group Holdings, Ltd., the plaintiffs asked the court to require arbitration. The judgment refers to a settlement agreement that purported to resolve all claims and required disputes under that agreement to be decided by an arbitrator.
The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration. It also dismissed the action because the settlement agreement covered the claims and the disputes belonged in arbitration.
The judgment was entered on November 16, 2022, by the clerk for the court. The opinion text does not identify the presiding judge.
The detailed version
- Global Tech Industries Group, Inc. v. Go Fun Group Holdings, Ltd · No. 1:17-cv-03727
- Nov. 16, 2022
Background The plaintiffs moved to compel arbitration. The judgment states that the court’s reasons were given in an Opinion & Order dated November 14, 2022, but that separate opinion is not included in the provided text. The judgment also states that the plaintiffs asked the court to decline further jurisdiction and reinstate dismissal.
Ruling The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration. It stated that the settlement agreement purported to resolve all claims in the case and that disputes arising under the agreement were to be decided by an arbitrator. The court therefore dismissed the action, citing a court’s authority to dismiss an action properly suited for arbitration.
Effect The provided judgment ends this action in the district court by granting the arbitration motion and dismissing the case. It does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The text identifies Ruby J. Krajick as the clerk of court, but it does not identify the judge.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.