Opinion
20 Civ. 6874 (KPF)
02-24-2021
CHANCELOR DAYNE BENSON, Plaintiff, v. VOSS EVENTS, INC., Defendant.
ORDER
:
A court resolving a motion to compel arbitration applies a standard similar to that for summary judgment. Meyer v. Uber Techs., Inc., 868 F.3d 66, 74 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 834 F.3d 220, 229 (2d Cir. 2016)). After discussing Defendant's anticipated motion to compel arbitration with the parties on the record on February 23, 2021, and following a careful review of the record, the Court believes that there is a disputed issue of fact as to the existence of a binding arbitration agreement between the parties. Accordingly, the Court orders limited, targeted discovery into the existence vel non of an arbitration agreement between the parties. See Moton v. Maplebear Inc., No. 15 Civ. 8879 (CM), 2016 WL 616343, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2016) ("Courts have permitted limited discovery into the validity of the arbitration agreement ... when the party opposing arbitration 'come[s] forth with reliable evidence ... that it did not intend to be bound by the arbitration agreement[.]'" (quoting Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, LLC, 716 F.3d 764, 774 (3d Cir. 2013)). The parties shall complete this expedited, targeted discovery within 60 days of the date of this Order, at which time Defendant shall inform the Court, in writing, whether it intends to move to compel arbitration or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint. Defendant's obligation to respond to the Amended Complaint is hereby STAYED pending targeted discovery into the issue of arbitrability, as is all other fact discovery in this case.
SO ORDERED. Dated: February 24, 2021
New York, New York
/s/_________
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA
United States District Judge