Legal Opinion
Freeman v. Complex Computing Co., Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided June 28, 1996No. 95 Civ. 3811 (LAK)PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
KAPLAN, District Judge.
Plaintiff Daniel Freeman claims that defendant Complex Computing Company (“C3”) breached the contract between them and that C3 was tortiously induced to do so by defendants Jason Glazier and Thomson Trading Services, Inc. (“Thomson”). Now before the Court are defendants’ motion to stay this action pending arbitration and plaintiffs cross-motion to compel all defendants to arbitrate and to disqualify defendants’ counsel on the basis of the witness-advocate rule.
Facts
In September 1993, plaintiff and C3 entered into an agreement pursuant to which Freeman…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Landis v. North American Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Murphy v. American Home Products Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Thomson-Csf, S.A. v. American Arbitration Association, Evans & Sutherland Computer CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
- Ray v. Alad Corp.California Supreme Court · 1977
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Freeman v. Complex Computing Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1997
- Katsoris v. WME IMG, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2017
- Cargo Partner AG v. Albatrans Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2002
- Old Republic Insurance v. Hansa World Cargo Service, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1997
- Ryan, Beck & Co., LLC. v. FakihDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2003
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.