Legal Opinion
Chloe Z Fishing Co. v. Odyssey Re (London) Ltd.
District Court, S.D. California
Decided April 26, 2000No. 99-2521-IEG RBBPublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PLAINTIFFS’ ACTION [Doc. No. 3]
GONZALEZ, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the above-referenced proceedings. For the reasons discussed below, the Court hereby grants the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and orders that the action be stayed pending arbitration.
BACKGROUND
On September 24, 1999, Chloe Z Fishing Co., Inc., and eighteen other named plaintiffs (the “plaintiffs”) filed an action in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San…
2Cases cited74 opinions
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Sandin v. ConnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
- At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
69 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Cape Flattery Limited v. Titan Maritime, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- United States v. Southern California Edison Co.District Court, E.D. California · 2004
- Cape Flattery Ltd. v. Titan Maritime LLCDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 2009
- Gabriel Capital, L.P. v. CAIB Investmentbank AktiengesellschaftAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- Sea Bowld Marine Group, LDC v. Oceanfast Pty, Ltd.District Court, S.D. Florida · 2006
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.