Legal Opinion

Schatz v. Cellco Partnership

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided January 31, 2012No. 10 Civ. 5414(RJH)PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

RICHARD J. HOLWELL, District Judge:

Before the Court is a motion, pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., by plaintiffs Kristen Schatz (“Schatz”) and Patrick Witty (“Witty,” and, together, the “plaintiffs”) to compel defendant Célico Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (‘Verizon”) to arbitrate. The plaintiffs ask the Court (1) to order Verizon to arbitrate a claim, pursuant to the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. §§ 56:8-1 et seq., or, alternatively, the New York General Business Law § 349, for “general…

2Cases cited43 opinions

  1. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. ShoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  3. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
  4. Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  5. Taylor v. SturgellSupreme Court of the United States · 2008

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Emilio v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2013

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

Powered by the Exa API