In Re: Second Wave IBM Arbitration Agreement Litigation, No. 1:2021cv09574 - Document 15 (S.D.N.Y. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 7 LETTER MOTION to Stay Arbitrations addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Shannon Liss-Riordan dated 12/4/2021. filed by Patricia Rivard-Gardner, Steven Reid, Justin Shofler, William Dunbar, Nancy Lapointe, Timothy Hou, Usha Krishnamurthy, Gina Mazzarelli, Jesse Greenberg, Paul Brackett, John Daglio, Toni Jefferson, Jeffrey Roberts, Gregory Nassar, David Nydam, Denise Cote, John Zoglin, Andrea Sayles, Walter Arnhols, Brigi tte Pace, George Markos, Donald Hunter, Marie Degroh, Richard Cimina, Pierre Bedard, Melissa Burch, Rene Chapa, Bonnie Johnson, Salvador Carceller, Mark Cupelo, Marci Cox, Christopher Fryett, Louis Dawkins, Kenneth Martin, Rolf Nelson , Sarita Fobbs, Todd Landsman, Patrisa Philips, Fred Dobson, Mark Schairer, Lara Moliterni, Elizabeth DiMaio, David Liesen, Diane Zerafa, Stephen Apana, Sharon Gilmore, Betty Jackson, Richard Spellman, Kelli Douglass. Plaintiffs' letter motion for a stay is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 7. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 12/14/21) (yv)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
In Re: Second Wave IBM Arbitration Agreement Litigation Doc. 15 Case 1:21-cv-09574-JMF Document 15 Filed 12/14/21 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : : IN RE: : SECOND WAVE IBM ARBITRATION AGREEMENT : LITIGATION : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X 21-CV-9574 (JMF) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: On December 4, 2021, Plaintiffs in these consolidated cases filed a letter motion seeking entry of an order staying certain arbitration proceedings. See ECF No. 7. To the extent that Plaintiffs seek such relief with respect to arbitration proceedings to which they themselves are not parties, the request is denied for lack of standing. See, e.g., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Jordan, No. 17-CV-199 (RGA), 2017 WL 1536396, at *3 (D. Del. Apr. 27, 2017) (holding that the plaintiffs did “not have standing to seek injunctive relief” with respect to a pending arbitration because they were not parties to the arbitration); Kakawi Yachting, Inc. v. Marlow Marine Sales, Inc., 215 F. Supp. 3d 1259, 1264 (M.D. Fla. 2014) (holding that the plaintiff “lack[ed] standing” to enjoin an arbitration to which it was not a party); Embarq Retiree Med. Plan. v. Berolzheimer, No. 08-CV-4045 (WTH), 2009 WL 112790, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 14. 2009) (“Since [plaintiffs] are not parties to the arbitration and no relief is requested from them, they do not have standing to enjoin the arbitration.”). To the extent that Plaintiffs seek such relief with respect to their own arbitration proceedings, the request is denied on the merits. For starters, Plaintiffs failed even to make an effort in their initial letter motion to demonstrate how the stay factors would support such emergency relief. Plaintiffs belatedly take a stab in their reply letter, see ECF No. 14 (“Pls.’ Reply”), but it is well established that a party may not make, and a court need not consider, arguments for the first time in reply, see, e.g., Knipe v. Skinner, 999 F.2d 708, 711 (2d Cir. 1993); Simon v. City of New York, No. 14-CV-8391 (JMF), 2015 WL 2069436, at *2 n.4 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2015). In any event, Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a stay. As Defendants note, Plaintiffs are “free to use the discovery process in their arbitrations to seek any relevant evidence, including that obtained by other claimants in other confidential arbitrations.” ECF No. 13, at 4. And contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertions, there is no danger of “inconsistent rulings” in any given case — particularly given the availability of judicial review following any decisions by the arbitrators. Pls.’ Reply 6. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ letter motion for a stay is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 7. SO ORDERED. Dated: December 14, 2021 New York, New York __________________________________ JESSE M. FURMAN United States District Judge Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
