Legal Opinion
Bannett v. Hankin
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided August 16, 2004No. 2:03-cv-05976PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOYNER, District Judge.
Via the motion now pending before this Court, Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs complaint pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) on the grounds that the dispute is subject to a mandatory arbitration provision. For the reasons outlined below, the motion shall be GRANTED.
Factual Background
This case arises out of two real estate partnerships in which Plaintiff Dr. Bannett (“Plaintiff’) had purchased limited partnership interests in 1983. Those partnerships, HanMar Associates XV and XIX (“HanMar Partnerships”), were formed by the defendant Mark…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Thomson-Csf, S.A. v. American Arbitration Association, Evans & Sutherland Computer CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
- Grigson v. Creative Artists Agency, L.L.C.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2000
- Genesco, Inc. v. T. Kakiuchi & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Miron v. BDO Seidman, LLPDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2004
- Torres v. Cleannet, U.S.A., Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2015
- KINGSLEY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC v. SlyDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2011
- Amato v. KPMG LLPDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2006
- Allscripts Healthcare, LLC v. Andor Health, LLCDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 2022