Legal Opinion
Topf v. Warnaco, Inc.
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided August 22, 1996No. Civil 3:95CV2257 (PCD)PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON MOTION TO STAY THE ACTION AND COMPEL ARBITRATION AND MOTION FOR JURY TRIAL
DORSEY, Chief Judge.
Defendant moves to stay the action and compel arbitration pursuant to 9 U.S.C. §§ 3 and 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Plaintiff cross-moves for a jury trial on the issue of whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties. For the reasons stated below, plaintiffs motion is denied and defendant’s motion is granted.
I. FACTS
Warnaco is a manufacturer of men’s and women’s apparel. In August 1991, defendant offered employment to plaintiff as Vice President of Operations in…
2Cases cited53 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. KaplanSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Donald White v. Sunoco IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2017
- Cione v. Foresters Equity Services, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1997
- TICHANEN v. Harris & Harris, Ltd.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2006
- MM Global Services, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Co.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2003
- Santos v. GE CAPITALDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2005
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.