HBK Sorce Financial LLC et al v. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. et al

Filing 65

Memorandum Opinion and Order adopting Defendants' Protective Order and granting a stay of the Federal litigation and compelling the matter to arbitration. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 6/2/2011. (S,L)

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
HBK SORCE FINANCIAL, LLC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 4:10CV02284

JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND
ORDER (1) ADOPTING
DEFENDANTS’ PROTECTIVE
ORDER AND (2) GRANTING A STAY
OF THE FEDERAL LITIGATION
AND COMPELLING THE MATTER
TO ARBITRATION [Resolving ECF
Nos. 5, 21, 23, 25, 27, 31, & 37]

Plaintiffs’ HBK Sorce Financial, LLC and Defendants’ Amerprise Financial Services,
Inc. submitted competing Proposed Protective Orders, despite the Court’s instruction that a
jointly stipulated order be filed. ECF 04/14/2011; see also ECF Nos. 54-1, 55-1. The Court
issues the Protective Order proposed by Defendants as it most closely meets the standards set by
the Northern District of Ohio with few modifications.1 See Local Rule–Appendix L. Should
matters arise that are not covered by the issued Protective Order, the parties may notify the Court.
The Court grants a Stay of the instant federal litigation and compels the matter to the
American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) arbitration, resolving ECF Nos. 21, 23, 25, 27, 31, &
37. See ECF Nos. 40, 41, & 50. The docket reflects that the parties have previously elected and
submitted the dispute to AAA arbitration. See ECF Nos. 50, 51.

1

Counsel is obligated to file a joint Status Report every forty-five (45) days hence
notifying the Court of the progress of the arbitration until the earlier of the end of the arbitration
or Stay. See ECF 04/14/2011.

(4:10CV02284)
The Court denies the Motion for Preliminary Injunction as moot without prejudice to the
resurrection of any issues raised in the motion for preliminary injunction not resolved by
arbitration (ECF No. 5). The denial of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction is not prejudicial
given the AAA requirement that the parties maintain the status quo.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 2, 2011
Date

/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge

-2-