§Why CasetextPricing

Norcast S.AR.L. v. Castle Harlan, Inc.

REPLY re: 17 Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion in Opposition and in Further Support of Norcast's Motion to Remand. Document

15 Cited authorities

  1. Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. Am. Arbitration Ass'n

    64 F.3d 773 (2d Cir. 1995)   Cited 825 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that although the unwilling party received a benefit, the benefit did not derive directly from the agreement containing the arbitration clause and thus arbitration could not be compelled

  2. Inter. Pa. v. Schwabedissen Maschinen

    206 F.3d 411 (4th Cir. 2000)   Cited 426 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a signatory to an arbitration agreement may be bound by a nonsignatory through the doctrine of equitable estoppel

  3. Noble Drilling Servs., Inc. v. Certex USA, Inc.

    620 F.3d 469 (5th Cir. 2010)   Cited 113 times
    Holding that absent evidence that the non-signatory knew of the terms of the contract containing the arbitration provision, direct benefits estoppel did not apply

  4. Fiveco v. Haber

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 5958 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 80 times
    Holding that a party could not stay arbitration where it did not file an application within twenty days per § 7503(c)

  5. OPPENHEIMER CO. INC. v. DEUTSCHE BANK AG

    09 Civ. 8154 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2010)   Cited 25 times
    Declining to compel an unwilling nonsignatory to arbitrate under an estoppel theory for lack of direct benefit

  6. Borsack v. Chalk Vermilion Fine

    974 F. Supp. 293 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)   Cited 35 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a signatory could enforce an arbitration provision against a non-signatory third-party beneficiary

  7. Ellen v. A.C. Schultes of Maryland, Inc.

    172 N.C. App. 317 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 20 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Ellen, the plaintiffs did not assert any breach of contract claims under agreements containing arbitration provisions, but rather asserted solely claims of "unfair and deceptive trade practices and tortious interference with prospective business advantages."

  8. Haskins v. First Am. Title Ins. Co.

    866 F. Supp. 2d 343 (D.N.J. 2012)   Cited 11 times

    Civ. No. 10–5044 (RMB/JS). 2012-05-4 Miriam HASKINS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Daniel Posternock, Barron & Posternock, L.L.P., Moorestown, NJ, for Plaintiffs. Edward J. Reich, New York, NY, for Defendant. JOEL SCHNEIDER Daniel Posternock, Barron & Posternock, L.L.P., Moorestown, NJ, for Plaintiffs. Edward J. Reich, New York, NY, for Defendant. OPINION JOEL SCHNEIDER, United States Magistrate Judge. This Opinion addresses whether non-signatories to an

  9. Industrial Window Corp. v. Federal Insurance Company

    609 F. Supp. 2d 329 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)   Cited 10 times
    Denying summary judgment on claims for payment for "extra work" under construction job where contractual provisions forbade modifications without a written change order, because "New York courts routinely hold that 'the general course of conduct between the parties may modify or eliminate contract provisions requiring written authorization or notice of claims.'"

  10. In re Aerotech World

    236 A.D.2d 609 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 21 times

    February 24, 1997. In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated January 17, 1996, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Before: Miller, J.P., Sullivan, Florio and Luciano, JJ. Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which dismissed that branch of the petition which was to stay arbitration of any claims arising out of the 1992

  11. Section 1447 - Procedure after removal generally

    28 U.S.C. § 1447   Cited 33,086 times   110 Legal Analyses
    Holding that with exceptions not relevant here, "[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise"