Legal Opinion

Sanford v. Bracewell & Guiliani, LLP

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided March 20, 2014No. Civil Action No. 13-1205Published

1Opinion of the Court

*571 OPINION

SLOMSKY, District Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION.571

II.FINDINGS OF FACT. oi **-3 to

A. Events Leading To the Hiring of Defendant or —3 to

B. Defendant is Retained as Counsel. oi -3 co

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR EVALUATING A MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION.575

IV. CRAIG SANFORD’S CLAIMS MUST BE PURSUED IN ARBITRATION WHILE MARY JO SANFORD IS ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL ON WHETHER SHE IS A CLIENT OF THE FIRM AND ON THE ARBITRABILITY OF HER CLAIMS.576

A. Craig Sanford is Bound by the Arbitration Agreement.576

1. Applicable Standard of Review.576

2. The Complaint and Supporting Documents…

2Cases cited36 opinions

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  5. Mayer v. BelichickCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2010

31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API