{"id":3096,"date":"2015-07-31T15:21:39","date_gmt":"2015-07-31T19:21:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nyiac.org\/?p=3096"},"modified":"2015-08-25T11:00:40","modified_gmt":"2015-08-25T15:00:40","slug":"case-law-chronicle-to-stay-or-not-to-stay-second-circuit-clarifies-procedure-following-successful-motion-to-compel-arbitration","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nyiac.org\/legal-developments\/case-law-chronicle-to-stay-or-not-to-stay-second-circuit-clarifies-procedure-following-successful-motion-to-compel-arbitration\/","title":{"rendered":"Case Law Chronicle: \u201cTo Stay or Not To Stay\u201d: Second Circuit Clarifies Procedure Following Successful Motion to Compel Arbitration"},"content":{"rendered":"
by Mark Stadnyk<\/a>, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP (New York)<\/p>\n In\u00a0Michael A. Katz v. Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless, Docket Nos. 14\u2010138 and 14\u2010291 (July 28, 2015)<\/a>, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the \u201cCourt\u201d) addressed an important procedural matter under the Federal Arbitration Act (the \u201cFAA\u201d). Namely, does the FAA require a stay of proceedings when all claims are referred to arbitration and a stay has been requested, or do federal district courts enjoy the discretion to dismiss the case outright after granting such a motion to compel arbitration?<\/p>\n