WORTH v. WORTH et al

Filing 45

ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION IS DENIED. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL IS DENIED. DEFENDANTS SHALL FILE AN ANSWER NO LATER THAN 12/13/16; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MARK A. KEARNEY ON 11/29/16. 11/29/16 ENTERED AND E-MAILED.(jl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MARKWORTH

CIVIL ACTION

v.

NO. 16-3877

STEPHEN WORTH, et al.

ORDER
AND NOW, this 29th day of November 2016, upon consideration of Defendants' Motion
to compel arbitration (ECF Doc. No. 20), Plaintiff's Opposition (ECF Doc. No. 22),
Defendants' Reply (ECF Doc. No. 33), Plaintiff's Motion to disqualify counsel (ECF Doc. No.
16), Defendants' Opposition (ECF Doc. No. 21) and Plaintiff's Reply (ECF Doc. No. 34),
following oral argument and for reasons in the accompanying Memorandum, it is ORDERED:
1.

Defendants' Motion to compel arbitration (ECF Doc. No. 20) is DENIED;

2.

Plaintiff's Motion to disqualify counsel (ECF Doc. No. 16) is DENIED;

3.

By agreement, we dismiss: Plaintiff's individual RICO claims in Counts I and II;

Plaintiff's individual fiduciary duty claim (Count III); Plaintiff's derivative claims against
fiduciaries as employees (Count IV,

~197);

Plaintiff's common law fraud (Count VI), unjust

enrichment (Count VIII) and conversion (Count XI) claims as encompassed in the derivative
breach of fiduciary duty claim; Plaintiff's request for inspection (Count XII) as encompassed in
his minority oppression claim; and identity theft allegations; and,
4.

Defendants shall file an Answer no later than December 13, 2016.