Opinion
Civil No. 19-17382 (RMB/AMD)
11-25-2019
CAROLINE KABEL KOTLER, Plaintiff, v. DAVID T. SHULICK, et al., Defendants.
APPEARANCES: DENNIS E. BLOCK, ESQ. 900 Route 168, Suite H-1 Turnersville, New Jersey 08012 Counsel for Plaintiff DAVID T. SHULICK, ESQ., pro se 1499 Wesleys Run Gladwynne, Pennsylvania 19035
OPINION
APPEARANCES:
DENNIS E. BLOCK, ESQ.
900 Route 168, Suite H-1
Turnersville, New Jersey 08012
Counsel for Plaintiff DAVID T. SHULICK, ESQ., pro se
1499 Wesleys Run
Gladwynne, Pennsylvania 19035 BUMB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE :
This matter comes before the Court upon Defendants' Motion to Dismiss this legal malpractice suit "pursuant to a binding arbitration agreement." [Docket No. 3] In an Order to Show Cause dated November 13, 2019, this Court directed Plaintiff to demonstrate why this case should not be dismissed in favor of arbitration. The Court explicitly warned that "[f]ailure to timely respond to this Order shall be deemed consent to arbitrate the claims asserted in this case." [Docket No. 15] Plaintiff's response was due on November 23, 2019. To date, no response has been filed. Thus, the Court will grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. An Order accompanies this Opinion. November 25, 2019
"[W]hen it is apparent, based on the face of a complaint, and documents relied upon in the complaint, that certain of a party's claims are subject to an enforceable arbitration clause, a motion to compel arbitration should be considered under a Rule 12(b)(6) standard without discovery's delay." Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, L.L.C., 716 F.3d 764, 776 (3d Cir. 2013). --------
s/ Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE