SANFORD et al v. BRACEWELL LLP

Filing 38

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY PENDING ARBITRATION [#3] IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS GRANTED AS TO CRAIG SANFORD AND DENIED AS TO MARY JO SANFORD. WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER, PLAINTI FF CRAIG SANFORD MAY FILE FOR ARBITRATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE ENGAGEMENT LETTER. IF PLAINTIFF CRAIG SANFORD DOES NOT DO SO WITHIN THE THIRTY (30) DAY PERIOD, HIS CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT BRACEWELL & GUILIANI WILL BE DISMISSED. HE IS O RDERED TO NOTIFY THIS COURT ON THE RECORD WHETHER HE HAS PURSUED HIS CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT BRACEWELL & GUILIANI IN ARBITRATION WITHIN THE THIRTY (30) DAY PERIOD. IF HE DOES FILE FOR ARBITRATION, HIS CLAIMS IN THIS CASE WILL BE STAYED PENDING THE O UTCOME OF ARBITRATION. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT DEFENDANT BRACEWELL & GUILIANI SHALL FILE AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT ONLY IN REGARD TO MARY JO SANFORD WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. THEREAFTER, A CONFERENCE PURSUANT TO RULE 16 OF THE FRCP WILL BE SCHEDULED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOEL H. SLOMSKY ON 3/20/14. 3/20/14 ENTERED & E-MAILED.(fdc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CRAIG SANFORD, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 13-1205

v.
BRACEWELL & GUILIANI, LLP,
Defendant.
ORDER

AND NOW, this 19th day of March 2014, upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion to
Stay Pending Arbitration (Doc. No. 3), Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to
Defendant’s Motion to Stay Pending Arbitration (Doc. No. 7), Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiffs’
Opposition to the Motion to Stay Pending Arbitration (Doc. No. 11), Defendant’s Supplemental
Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Stay Pending Arbitration (Doc. No. 15), Plaintiffs’
Memorandum of Law at the Request of the Court’s Order of June 17, 2013 (Doc. No. 21),
Defendant’s Memorandum of Law Regarding the Standards for Arbitrability Determinations
(Doc. No. 22), Defendant’s Supplemental Brief in Support of its Motion to Stay Pending
Arbitration (Doc. No. 32), Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Memorandum in Further Opposition to
Motion to Compel Arbitration regarding the Attorney-Client Relationship Between the
Defendant and Mary Jo Sanford (Doc. No. 33), Defendant’s Reply Brief in Support of its Motion
to Stay Pending Arbitration (Doc. No. 34), and the arguments of counsel and testimony at the
hearings held on May 2, 2013, July 15, 2013, July 31, 2013, and September 18, 2013, it is
ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendant’s Motion to Stay Pending Arbitration (Doc. No. 3) is GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED IN PART. It is GRANTED as to Craig Sanford and DENIED
as to Mary Jo Sanford.
2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff Craig Sanford may file
for arbitration in accordance with the terms of the Engagement Letter. If Plaintiff
Craig Sanford does not do so within the thirty (30) day period, his claims against
Defendant Bracewell & Guiliani will be dismissed. He is ORDERED to notify this
Court on the record whether he has pursued his claims against Defendant Bracewell
& Guiliani in arbitration within the thirty (30) day period. If he does file for
arbitration, his claims in this case will be stayed pending the outcome of arbitration.
3. It is further ORDERED that Defendant Bracewell & Guiliani shall file an Answer to
the Complaint only in regard to Mary Jo Sanford within twenty (20) days of the date
of this Order. Thereafter, a conference pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure will be scheduled.

BY THE COURT:

/ s/ J oel H. S l om sk y
JOEL H. SLOMSKY, J.