Opinion
13742N Index No. 655147/20 Case No. 2021-00030
05-04-2021
YI LIU et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Michael TIEDEMANN et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Pryor Cashman LLP, New York (Eric M. Fishman of counsel), for appellants. Kagen Caspersen & Bogart PLLC, New York (Joel M. Taylor of counsel), for respondents.
Pryor Cashman LLP, New York (Eric M. Fishman of counsel), for appellants.
Kagen Caspersen & Bogart PLLC, New York (Joel M. Taylor of counsel), for respondents.
Gische, J.P., Mazzarelli, Oing, Gonza´lez, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered December 17, 2020, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants' motion to compel arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted.
Plaintiffs are correct that the choice of law provision in the parties' agreements requires the application of Delaware law ( Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 524, 529, 202 L.Ed.2d 480 [2019] ).
Under Delaware law, the agreements, which contain a broad arbitration clause and incorporate the rules of JAMS (which provide for arbitrability to be decided by the arbitrator), mandate referral of the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator ( James & Jackson, LLC v. Willie Gary, LLC, 906 A.2d 76, 79–80 [Del. 2006] ).