HRB Professional Resources LLC v. Stanton
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:23-cv-02307
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In HRB Professional Resources LLC v. Stanton, Judge Briccetti ordered arbitration, preserved an existing agreement, stayed proceedings, and administratively closed the case.
HRB Professional Resources LLC and Danny W. Stanton, whose court proceedings were stayed while they proceed to arbitration.
What happened
HRB Professional Resources LLC v. Stanton involved the parties’ joint agreement to stay the court proceedings and arbitrate their claims under a mutual arbitration agreement.
The court ordered the parties to proceed with arbitration, kept in place an agreement made during a March 31, 2023 hearing, and stayed the remaining court proceedings. The Clerk was directed to administratively close the case, while allowing either party to ask to reopen it by letter within 30 days after arbitration ends.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti entered the order on June 1, 2023. The order did not resolve the parties’ underlying claims in court.
The detailed version
- HRB Professional Resources LLC v. Stanton · No. 7:23-cv-02307
- Vincent Briccetti
- June 1, 2023
Background
The parties submitted a Joint Stipulation to Stay Proceedings and Arbitrate Claims dated May 31, 2023. The stipulation referred to a Mutual Arbitration Agreement. The order also referred to a stipulated agreement that the parties placed on the record during a March 31, 2023 hearing and that the court had previously approved.
Court’s Order
The court ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration under the Joint Stipulation and Mutual Arbitration Agreement. It ordered that the stipulated agreement made during the March 31 hearing would remain in effect while arbitration was pending.
The court otherwise stayed the proceedings. It directed the Clerk to administratively close the case. The order stated that either party could move by letter to reopen the case within 30 days after the arbitration proceedings concluded.
Disposition and Classification
The court ordered arbitration, stayed the proceedings, and administratively closed the case. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits. The administrative closure was not a final decision, as reflected in the opinion’s citation to an appellate decision explaining that administrative closure has no jurisdictional significance.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.