From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Progressive Pipeline Management v. N. Abbonizio Conts

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Apr 7, 2011
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-4551 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 7, 2011)

Summary

finding no procedural unconscionability, reasoning “Plaintiff does not offer any evidence, other than Conrad's affidavit, to support its argument that the subcontract was non-negotiable. Plaintiff does not produce a single fax, email, or letter demonstrating that Abbonizio refused to cooperate or was unwilling to entertain proposed changes to the agreement.”

Summary of this case from Jenkins v. PetSmart, LLC

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-4551.

April 7, 2011


ORDER


AND NOW, this 7th day of April, 2011, upon consideration of Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration (ECF No. 5), and all documents submitted in support thereof and in opposition thereto, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. The Motion is GRANTED as to Defendant N. Abbonizio Contractors, Inc.
2. The Motion is DENIED as to Defendant Arch Insurance Company.
3. Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Arch is STAYED during the pendency of Plaintiff's arbitration with Defendant Abbonizio.
IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Progressive Pipeline Management v. N. Abbonizio Conts

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Apr 7, 2011
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-4551 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 7, 2011)

finding no procedural unconscionability, reasoning “Plaintiff does not offer any evidence, other than Conrad's affidavit, to support its argument that the subcontract was non-negotiable. Plaintiff does not produce a single fax, email, or letter demonstrating that Abbonizio refused to cooperate or was unwilling to entertain proposed changes to the agreement.”

Summary of this case from Jenkins v. PetSmart, LLC
Case details for

Progressive Pipeline Management v. N. Abbonizio Conts

Case Details

Full title:PROGRESSIVE PIPELINE MANAGEMENT, LLC v. N. ABBONIZIO CONTRACTORS, INC., ET…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Apr 7, 2011

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-4551 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 7, 2011)

Citing Cases

Russo v. Trans Union, LLC

Courts regularly compel individual arbitration for a single defendant in multi-defendant actions. See e.g.,…

Jimmy v. Elwyn, Inc.

. . . Although we agree that the PUC's analysis is lacking, we will decide the issue on the merits.");…