Lonstein Law Office, P.C. v. Evanston Insurance Company

S.D. New York

Lonstein Law Office, P.C. v. Evanston Insurance Company

DecidedJuly 11, 2024

Docket1:20-cv-09712

StatusUnknown

This text of Lonstein Law Office, P.C. v. Evanston Insurance Company (Lonstein Law Office, P.C. v. Evanston Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lonstein Law Office, P.C. v. Evanston Insurance Company, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: Sona ccna nanan IK DATE FILED:_07/11/2024 LONSTEIN LAW OFFICE, P.C., JULIE LONSTEIN, : WAYNE D. LONSTEIN, : Plaintiffs, : 20-cv-9712 (LJL) -v- : ORDER EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY, MARKEL : SERVICE INCORPORATED, AT&T SERVICES, INC., : Defendants.

LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: On January 6, 2022, the Court granted the motion of Defendant AT&T Services, Inc. (“AT&T”) to compel arbitration. Dkt. No. 67. The Court stayed the case against AT&T pending the completion of the arbitration. /d. at 17: see Katz v. Cellco P’ship, 794 F.3d 341, 343 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 136 U.S. 596 (2015) (“the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., requires a stay of proceedings when all claims are referred to arbitration and a stay requested”). The Court thereafter granted the motion of Defendants Evanston Insurance Company and Market Service Incorporated to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action against them. Dkt. No. 72. On May 12, 2022, the Court entered an order dismissing the claims against Evanston Insurance Company in the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice. Dkt. No. 95. On June 25, 2024, the Court was informed by the parties that the arbitration proceedings instituted by Plaintiffs against AT&T were closed by order of the arbitrators due to non-payment of the arbitral fees. Dkt. No. 104. The Court entered an Order to Show Cause on June 26, 2024 why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice and closed due to Plaintiffs non-payment of arbitrator fees. Dkt. No. 105. Plaintiffs filed a letter stating that they cannot afford arbitration fees and will not be making a submission in response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause. Dkt. No. 106. Defendant AT&T Services (now through its successor in interest, DIRECTV, LLC) filed a response requesting that the case be dismissed without prejudice. Dkt. No. 107. Accordingly, the case is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case. SO ORDERED.

a“ J, oN Dated: July 11, 2024 oof AD New York, New York LEWIS J. LIMAN United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: Sona ccna nanan IK DATE FILED:_07/11/2024 LONSTEIN LAW OFFICE, P.C., JULIE LONSTEIN, : WAYNE D. LONSTEIN, : Plaintiffs, : 20-cv-9712 (LJL) -v- : ORDER EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY, MARKEL : SERVICE INCORPORATED, AT&T SERVICES, INC., : Defendants.

LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: On January 6, 2022, the Court granted the motion of Defendant AT&T Services, Inc. (“AT&T”) to compel arbitration. Dkt. No. 67. The Court stayed the case against AT&T pending the completion of the arbitration. /d. at 17: see Katz v. Cellco P’ship, 794 F.3d 341, 343 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 136 U.S. 596 (2015) (“the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., requires a stay of proceedings when all claims are referred to arbitration and a stay requested”). The Court thereafter granted the motion of Defendants Evanston Insurance Company and Market Service Incorporated to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action against them. Dkt. No. 72. On May 12, 2022, the Court entered an order dismissing the claims against Evanston Insurance Company in the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice. Dkt. No. 95. On June 25, 2024, the Court was informed by the parties that the arbitration proceedings instituted by Plaintiffs against AT&T were closed by order of the arbitrators due to non-payment of the arbitral fees. Dkt. No. 104. The Court entered an Order to Show Cause on June 26, 2024 why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice and closed due to Plaintiffs non-payment of arbitrator fees. Dkt. No. 105. Plaintiffs filed a letter stating that they cannot afford arbitration fees and will not be making a submission in response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause. Dkt. No. 106. Defendant AT&T Services (now through its successor in interest, DIRECTV, LLC) filed a response requesting that the case be dismissed without prejudice. Dkt. No. 107. Accordingly, the case is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case. SO ORDERED.

a“ J, oN Dated: July 11, 2024 oof AD New York, New York LEWIS J. LIMAN United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lonstein Law Office, P.C. v. Evanston Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lonstein-law-office-pc-v-evanston-insurance-company-nysd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack