The issue before the Court was whether the franchisor could “stay” its own claims (under 9 U.S.C. § 3) in favor of a later-filed arbitration. Mr. Malzahn argued that the franchisor could not seek a “do-over” after choosing to litigate extensively in the District Court. In ruling in our client’s favor, the Court noted: “Notably, Breadeaux is the plaintiff and elected to litigate in the district court below. Only after a series of adverse rulings did Breadeaux seek to stay the litigation in favor of arbitration.” Therefore, the dispute will continue in the District Court.
Read the entire opinion here.
]]>