1) Plaintiff Global Merchant filed a complaint and application for pre-arbitral attachment and stay of proceedings pending arbitration against Defendant Agri Feed for breach of contract and fraud related to the sale and delivery of hay.
2) The contract between the parties contained an arbitration clause requiring the use of CIETAC for dispute resolution. It is alleged that Defendant Agri Feed forged laboratory test results to receive payment under the letter of credit for substandard hay.
3) Plaintiff argues that California law allows for pre-arbitral attachment to prevent assets from being hidden or dissipated during arbitration proceedings. The remaining issue is whether CIETAC rules providing temporary relief would supersede California law.
The decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. EQT had leased land from Alex Cooper, et al with an initial five-year term. The lease provided for a five-year extension. It also required EQT to drill at least one well on/under the property during the first five-year lease. EQT failed to drill a well in the first term but instead elected to extend the lease for an additional five years. The federal judge found that EQT has the right to extend the lease even if they didn't drill a well during the first term.
The decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. EQT had leased land from Alex Cooper, et al with an initial five-year term. The lease provided for a five-year extension. It also required EQT to drill at least one well on/under the property during the first five-year lease. EQT failed to drill a well in the first term but instead elected to extend the lease for an additional five years. The federal judge found that EQT has the right to extend the lease even if they didn't drill a well during the first term.
MDFL - Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Trade Secret & Fraud ClaimsPollard PLLC
In this order, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, denies the defendants' motions to dismiss claims for breach of contract, theft of trade secrets in violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 USC 1836 et. seq., fraud and aiding and abetting fraud.
In relevant part, the Court rejects the defendants' efforts to impose a summary judgment like burden at the pleading stage. Notable holdings include: (1) The question of whether information constitutes a trade secret is a question of fact normally resolved by a jury after full presentation of evidence. (2) A claim for misappropriation may exist not only where the defendant itself is alleged to have stolen trade secrets, but where the defendant is alleged to have obtained the trade secrets while knowing that they were acquired by improper means. (3) The allegation that a defendant induced a plaintiff to enter an NDA with no intention of honoring it states a claim for fraud in the inducement that is not barred by the independent tort doctrine.
The plaintiff is represented by Fort Lauderdale, Florida based Pollard PLLC. The firm has extensive experience litigating complex non-compete, trade secret, trademark and unfair competition claims. Their office can be reached at 954-332-2380.
A court case in which a landowner in Ohio sued to cancel a lease because the driller and the company that owns the lease have not paid any royalties since drilling. The Fifth Appellate District Court of Ohio found that because a specific provision in the original lease does not provide for cancellation due to non-payment of royalties, the landowners will have to continue to get screwed.
Motion to Dismiss Claims for Misappropriation of Trade Secrets and Tortious Interference under Florida law. Tampa, Florida. Hillsborough County Circuit Court - Complex Business Litigation Division.
Pollard PLLC
P. 954-332-2380
FLSA Litigation - Federal Court - MDFL Tampa - Fee Entitlement & MootnessPollard PLLC
Lawyers in FLSA cases and particularly on the defense side should view this as a cautionary tale: Tendering a check for the wages at issue does not moot the plaintiff's claim. FLSA claims are live until there is a judgment or a settlement approved by the court. And plaintiffs DO get their fees for litigating over the issue of attorneys' fees.
Simply put: A legitimate FLSA case, a skilled attorney on the plaintiff side, and defense counsel who do not understand the applicable legal framework make for disastrous results.
Express working capital llc v Starving Students IncM P
Synopsis
Background: Buyer of corporation's future credit card receivables brought action against seller-corporation and its owner, alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, fraud, and fraudulent inducement. Defendants asserted usury defense and counterclaim. Parties cross-moved for summary judgment.
U.S. District Court order in favor of Ironridge Global IV, Ltd.John Kirkland
Memorandum & Order of the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, denying application of NewLead Holdings Ltd. for preliminary injunction against Ironridge Global IV, Ltd. and dissolving temporary restraining order
PA Superior Court Ruling in Patricia Wright v. Misty Mountain, LLC and Shirle...Marcellus Drilling News
A ruling in an important mineral rights case in Pennsylvania, stemming from the sale of land, but not the oil and gas mineral rights, in 1950 in Bradford County, PA. The court upheld a decision that that the original mineral rights holder retained those rights even after a lease for those rights had expired.
SC Judgement - Appointment Of Third ArbitratorFlame Of Truth
The SC judgement by Justice S S Nijjar in the matter between Reliance Industries Ltd and others versus Union of India, arbitration petition filed by Reliance for appointment of the third and the presiding arbitrator.
FORECLOSURE Response to JP Morgan Chase Foreclosurelauren tratar
WAKE UP AMERICA! Banks are STEALING HOUSES they do not own nor did they pay a dime for! Mortgages were PRE-SOLD to Investors of Mortgage-Backed Securities. A bank CANNOT foreclose if it has NOTHING TO LOSE! The banks shifted the risk to the Investors and the banks took the PROMISSORY NOTES cashed them into the FRAUDULENT FEDERAL RESERVE, and then SOLD the exact same NOTES to MBS Trusts MULTIPLE TIMES!!!
The class-action lawsuit filed against Heartland Payment Systems filed on behalf of credit card holders claiming their private, sensitive data was breached.
Findings and Conclusions awarding damages to Ash Grove against Travelers and Liberty Mutual for breach of duty to defend in connection with Portland Harbor Superfund Site.
MDFL - Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Trade Secret & Fraud ClaimsPollard PLLC
In this order, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, denies the defendants' motions to dismiss claims for breach of contract, theft of trade secrets in violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 USC 1836 et. seq., fraud and aiding and abetting fraud.
In relevant part, the Court rejects the defendants' efforts to impose a summary judgment like burden at the pleading stage. Notable holdings include: (1) The question of whether information constitutes a trade secret is a question of fact normally resolved by a jury after full presentation of evidence. (2) A claim for misappropriation may exist not only where the defendant itself is alleged to have stolen trade secrets, but where the defendant is alleged to have obtained the trade secrets while knowing that they were acquired by improper means. (3) The allegation that a defendant induced a plaintiff to enter an NDA with no intention of honoring it states a claim for fraud in the inducement that is not barred by the independent tort doctrine.
The plaintiff is represented by Fort Lauderdale, Florida based Pollard PLLC. The firm has extensive experience litigating complex non-compete, trade secret, trademark and unfair competition claims. Their office can be reached at 954-332-2380.
A court case in which a landowner in Ohio sued to cancel a lease because the driller and the company that owns the lease have not paid any royalties since drilling. The Fifth Appellate District Court of Ohio found that because a specific provision in the original lease does not provide for cancellation due to non-payment of royalties, the landowners will have to continue to get screwed.
Motion to Dismiss Claims for Misappropriation of Trade Secrets and Tortious Interference under Florida law. Tampa, Florida. Hillsborough County Circuit Court - Complex Business Litigation Division.
Pollard PLLC
P. 954-332-2380
FLSA Litigation - Federal Court - MDFL Tampa - Fee Entitlement & MootnessPollard PLLC
Lawyers in FLSA cases and particularly on the defense side should view this as a cautionary tale: Tendering a check for the wages at issue does not moot the plaintiff's claim. FLSA claims are live until there is a judgment or a settlement approved by the court. And plaintiffs DO get their fees for litigating over the issue of attorneys' fees.
Simply put: A legitimate FLSA case, a skilled attorney on the plaintiff side, and defense counsel who do not understand the applicable legal framework make for disastrous results.
Express working capital llc v Starving Students IncM P
Synopsis
Background: Buyer of corporation's future credit card receivables brought action against seller-corporation and its owner, alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, fraud, and fraudulent inducement. Defendants asserted usury defense and counterclaim. Parties cross-moved for summary judgment.
U.S. District Court order in favor of Ironridge Global IV, Ltd.John Kirkland
Memorandum & Order of the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, denying application of NewLead Holdings Ltd. for preliminary injunction against Ironridge Global IV, Ltd. and dissolving temporary restraining order
PA Superior Court Ruling in Patricia Wright v. Misty Mountain, LLC and Shirle...Marcellus Drilling News
A ruling in an important mineral rights case in Pennsylvania, stemming from the sale of land, but not the oil and gas mineral rights, in 1950 in Bradford County, PA. The court upheld a decision that that the original mineral rights holder retained those rights even after a lease for those rights had expired.
SC Judgement - Appointment Of Third ArbitratorFlame Of Truth
The SC judgement by Justice S S Nijjar in the matter between Reliance Industries Ltd and others versus Union of India, arbitration petition filed by Reliance for appointment of the third and the presiding arbitrator.
FORECLOSURE Response to JP Morgan Chase Foreclosurelauren tratar
WAKE UP AMERICA! Banks are STEALING HOUSES they do not own nor did they pay a dime for! Mortgages were PRE-SOLD to Investors of Mortgage-Backed Securities. A bank CANNOT foreclose if it has NOTHING TO LOSE! The banks shifted the risk to the Investors and the banks took the PROMISSORY NOTES cashed them into the FRAUDULENT FEDERAL RESERVE, and then SOLD the exact same NOTES to MBS Trusts MULTIPLE TIMES!!!
The class-action lawsuit filed against Heartland Payment Systems filed on behalf of credit card holders claiming their private, sensitive data was breached.
Findings and Conclusions awarding damages to Ash Grove against Travelers and Liberty Mutual for breach of duty to defend in connection with Portland Harbor Superfund Site.
CLE Presentation: Daniel O'Toole, Litigation Partner at Armstrong Teasdale
Learn about recent key Missouri and federal court decisions and other developments in the law that can significantly affect your business.
The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on this presentation. All rights are reserved and content may not be reproduced, disseminated or transferred, in any form or by means, except with the prior written consent of Armstrong Teasdale.
Attachment Trustee Process & ExecutionMikeProsser
Slideshow from presentation to District Court Clerk-Magistrates and Asst. Clerk-Magistrates intended to promote understanding of the topics from both an "in court" and "out of court" perspective.
Public international law trendtex case_ State ImmunityManish Kumar
This case is related to the State immunity in Public International Law. This very case enumerates the stand of courts over State Immunity when commercial nature of State is involved.
Deterrent strategies in fraud litigation, September 2017, BirminghamBrowne Jacobson LLP
This seminar covered evidence, investigations and deterrent remedies. We focused on:
- an update on development of the use of s 57 CCJA 2015 and the effectiveness of pursuing fundamental dishonesty;
- unlocking evidence of fraud - forensic investigations around documents, mobile devices and computer data;
- costs sanctions against third parties;
- how to conduct an investigation in preparation for potential criminal action;
- evidential and legal considerations in bringing contempt proceedings.
Deterrent strategies in fraud litigation, September 2017, LondonBrowne Jacobson LLP
This seminar covered evidence, investigations and deterrent remedies. We focused on:
- an update on development of the use of s 57 CCJA 2015 and the effectiveness of pursuing fundamental dishonesty;
- unlocking evidence of fraud - forensic investigations around documents, mobile devices and computer data;
- costs sanctions against third parties;
- how to conduct an investigation in preparation for potential criminal action;
- evidential and legal considerations in bringing contempt proceedings.
Trial Strategy: Using "Other Paper" in a Motion to Remand a Coverage Action t...NationalUnderwriter
A recent decision by a federal district court in Pennsylvania highlights the importance of understanding the phrase “other paper” – for both insurance companies and policyholders – to decide the timeliness of a notice of removal.
Code of civil procedure 1908 pleading plaint written statementDr. Vikas Khakare
This explains what is pleading, rules of pleading. Plaint, its contents, when it can be amended. Written Statement, its contents, set off and counter claim.
Defense Response to Government Motion to Reconsider 2 October 2014 - al Iraqi...Thomas (Tom) Jasper
This Motion is timely filed pursuant to Rule for Military Commission (R.M.C.) 905(b) and Military Commissions Trial Judiciary Rule of Court (R. C.) 3.7.
The defense requests the Military Judge deny the Government's motion to reconsider, or in the alternative, deny the requested relief as unnecessary.
Defense Response to Government Motion to Reconsider 2 October 2014 - al Iraqi...
Writing Sample Dec 2015
1. REDACTED SAMPLE
Page 1 of 8
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF KENT
GLOBAL MERCHANT, LLC, )
) MEMORANDUM OF
Plaintiff, ) AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF
) APPLICATION FOR
v ) ATTACHMENT AND STAY
) PENDING ARBITRATION
AGRI FEED, LLC, )
)
Defendant. )
_____________________________________________/
Plaintiff Global Merchant, LLC, hereby submits the following memorandum of authority
in support of its application for pre-arbitral attachment and request for stay of this action pending
arbitration.
Even though the facts have already been set forth in the contemporaneously filed
complaint, the pertinent facts are restated below for the Court's convenience.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On March 18, 2014, Agent, Ltd., as agent for Plaintiff Global Merchant, LLC ("Global"),
entered into a contract with Defendant Agri Feed, LLC ("Agri"), for the delivery of 1,500 metric
tons of hay in consideration of a purchase price of USD 600,000.00. The agreement between the
2. REDACTED SAMPLE
Page 2 of 8
parties provided for final and binding arbitration before the China International Economic and
Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), for "all disputes in connection with the contract."
The contract was drafted by Defendant Agri, and the quality specifications provided, in
part, that the RFV (relative feed value) be no less than 140, and that Crude Protein ("CP") be no
less than 22%, where the former reflects the digestibility of agricultural feed, and where the latter
measures protein content. Through the contract, the parties also chose Test A-OK, Inc., of
Zeeland, Michigan, as the independent testing laboratory to conduct the testing of the samples.
The third quality specification pertained to "moisture" levels but is not relevant here.
The contract further provided that upon the receipt of, among others, the hay analysis
report from Test A-OK, Inc., a sight letter of credit, opened by Plaintiff Global at the Bank of
Hong Kong, would be released to Defendant Agri. Defendant Agri selected Macatawa Bank of
Los Angeles as the receiver/advising bank. On April 10, 2014, Defendant Agri submitted four
laboratory reports containing hay analyses, purportedly conducted by Test A-OK, Inc., to the
Macatawa Bank of Los Angeles. With all delivery conditions ostensibly met, the sight letter of
credit in the amount of the full purchase price was released to Defendant Agri. However, after
Plaintiff Global received the hay at the end of April, it found the quality to be substandard, and
its investigation confirmed that Defendant Agri had altered and forged the Test A-OK reports in
order to reflect a higher quality product in line with the contractual terms. Specifically, the four
reports contained altered numbers for the crude protein and RFV values to render the findings
acceptable and compliant under the contract.
As early as June 2014, Plaintiff Global attempted to communicate with both Defendant
Agri as well its holding company Mega, Ltd. No feedback was ever received, and this suit has
followed.
3. REDACTED SAMPLE
Page 3 of 8
DISCUSSION
a. Subject-matter jurisdiction.
As aforementioned, the contract between the parties provides for final and binding
arbitration before the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission
(CIETAC) for "[a]ll disputes in connection with [the] Contract." As such, the Convention on the
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards ("Convention"), codified at 9 U.S.C.
§201, et seq., governs the parties' agreement. See 9 U.S.C. §202 ("[a]n arbitration agreement or
arbitral award arising out of a legal relationship, whether contractual or not, which is considered
as commercial, including a transaction, contract, or agreement described in section 2 of this title,
falls under the Convention"); see also China National Metal Products Import/Export Co v. Apex
Digital, 155 F.Supp.2d 1174, 1178 (C.D. CA 2001).
While the Convention provides that federal district courts enjoy "original" jurisdiction,
the Convention implicitly recognizes that those state courts, enjoying general subject-matter
jurisdiction, can properly entertain such actions. See 9 U.S.C. §205 ("[w]here the subject matter
of an action or proceeding pending in a State court relates to an arbitration agreement or award
falling under the Convention, the defendant or the defendants may, at any time before the trial
thereof, remove such action or proceeding to the district court of the United States") (emphasis
added). Moreover, under the Federal Arbitration Act, being 9 U.S.C. §1, et seq., even state
courts are imbued with the power to, upon application, grant a stay of proceedings on any issue
that, under contract, is referable to arbitration. See 9 U.S.C. §3; see also China National, 155
F.Supp.2d at 1178, and Valencia v. Smyth, 185 Cal.App.4th 153, 165 (2010).
4. REDACTED SAMPLE
Page 4 of 8
Therefore, while there are no preliminary procedural impediments to this Court
entertaining the action and the reliefs sought herein by Plaintiff Global, i.e., issuance of an order
for attachment and a stay of proceedings, the analysis does not end here.
b. Pre-arbitral/judgment attachment.
Law.
Pre-arbitral or pre-judgment attachment is a temporary statutory remedy, which allows a
commercial creditor to move for a judicial lien on a debtor's property before final adjudication.
Under the statute, an attachment may only issue if there's a readily ascertainable claim for more
than USD 500.00 under a commercial contract, which is either unsecured or secured by personal
property. See Code of Civ. Proc. §483.010; see also e.g., Bank of Am. v. Stonehaven Manor,
LLC, 186 Cal.App.4th 719, 723 (2010); see also Goldstein v. Barak Construction, 164
Cal.App.4th 845, 852 (2008). Procedurally, before a writ of attachment may be issued, a
complaint must be filed. See Code of Civ. Proc. §484.010 ("[u]pon the filing of the complaint or
at any time thereafter, the plaintiff may apply pursuant to this article for a right to attach order
and a writ of attachment by filing an application for the order and writ with the court in which
the action is brought").
The moving party has the burden of proving (1) that "[t]he claim upon which the
attachment is based is one upon which an attachment may be issued," (2) the probable validity of
such a claim, (3) the purpose is not vexatious, and (4) "the amount to be secured by attachment is
greater than zero." Code of Civ. Proc. §484.090(a); see also Goldstein, 164 Cal.App.4th at 852.
Even if the contract calls for arbitration, a party may still apply for attachment as long as
they can demonstrate that the arbitration award might be rendered ineffective without such
temporary relief. Code of Civ. Proc. §1281.8(b).
5. REDACTED SAMPLE
Page 5 of 8
Application.
Applying the law to the facts, Plaintiff Global submits that the statutory requirements for
the issuance of a writ of attachment have all been met here.
First, the application for attachment has been filed contemporaneously with the
complaint, as required by Section 484.010 of the Code of Civ. Proc. Secondly, this matter
involves a commercial dispute with the claim being for restitutionary damages in the amount of
the purchase price of USD 600,000.00,1 which was unsecured. See Code of Civ. Proc. 483.010.
Thirdly, Plaintiff's claim has probable validity as Plaintiff Global has irrefutable proof that
Defendant Agri altered hay analysis lab results in order to remain compliant under the terms of
the contract and secure the release of the letter of credit from the receiver/advising bank.
Therefore, "it is more likely than not that the plaintiff will obtain a judgment against the
defendant" on both contract and tort claims. See Code of Civ. Proc. §484.090(a) and §481.190;
see also Loeb & Loeb v. Beverly Glen Music, Inc., 166 Cal.App.3d 1110, 1120 (1985). Next,
given the gravity of the grievance, it cannot be claimed that Plaintiff Global's suit is vexatious in
nature. See Code of Civ. Proc. §484.090(a); see also Goldstein, 164 Cal.App.4th at 852. In
similar vein, given the nature of the alleged breach and established proof of fraud, Defendant
1 The fact that Plaintiff is also seeking consequentialdamages associated with the breach of contract, which have not
yet been determined, is not fatal to its application for attachment, as was aptly explained by the Court in Cit Group
v. Super Dvd, Inc., 115 Cal.App.4th 537 (2004):
Additionally, "`[i]t is a well-recognized rule of law in this state that an attachment will lie upon a
cause of action for damages for a breach of contract where the damages are readily ascertainable by
reference to the contract and the basis of the computation of damages appears to be reasonable and definite.
[Citations.] The fact that the damages are unliquidated is not determinative. [Citations.] But the contract
sued on must furnish a standard by which the amount due may be clearly ascertained and there must exist a
basis upon which the damages can be determined by proof.'" (Lewis v. Steifel (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 648,
650, 220 P.2d 769, quoting Force v. Hart (1928) 205 Cal. 670, 673, 272 P. 583.) Accordingly, it is not
necessary that the amount owed appear on the face of the contract; it often happens that the amount due
under a contract does not appear on the contract itself. (Bringas v. Sullivan (1954) 126 Cal.App.2d 693,
699, 273 P.2d 336.)
Id. at 540 (emphasis added).
.
6. REDACTED SAMPLE
Page 6 of 8
Agri has provided every indication that it might, otherwise, be inclined to transfer, hide or
dissipate assets without the temporary relief that a writ of attachment would afford Plaintiff
Global. See Code of Civ. Proc. §1281.8(b).
c. Whether CIETAC already provides for temporary relief in the form of attachment, and
whether such provision under CIETAC necessarily supplants the operation of California law?
To Plaintiff's best understanding, the sole remaining issue that finds application under the
facts of this case is one that was last visited by the federal district court in China National Metal
Products Import/Export Co v. Apex Digital, 155 F.Supp.2d 1174 (C.D. CA 2001).
In China National Metal Products Import/Export Co v. Apex Digital, 155 F.Supp.2d
1174 (C.D. CA 2001), the parties to the contract acknowledged that they were bound by the
China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (hereinafter "CIETAC"),
adherence to which had been agreed upon in the contract. However, the plaintiff filed a suit in
federal district court for breach of contract. In the decision of the district court judge, the district
court explained that the plaintiff's reason for filing suit was solely to seek the ancillary issuance
of a writ of attachment. Id. at 1177. This, itself, the district court found unobjectionable,
concluding specifically that the International Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Arbitral Awards did not supplant its own subject-matter jurisdiction to issue ancillary
orders, such as a request for issuance of a writ of attachment. Id. at 1180. However, the Court
decided to, nonetheless, dismiss the suit because it was persuaded by the defendant that a
CIETAC provision, namely Article 23, already provided for provisional relief exclusively
through the "people's court" of China, which effectively supplanted its own authority to issue
such pre-arbitral relief. Id. at 1182. As noted by the district court judge in China National,
7. REDACTED SAMPLE
Page 7 of 8
supra, Article 23 of CIETAC, as incorporated by reference into the commercial contract, had
read as follows at the time:
When a party applies for property preservative measures, the Arbitration Commission
shall submit the party's application to the people's court for a ruling in the place where
the domicile of the party against whom the property preservative measures are sought is
located or in the place where the property of the said party is located.
Id. at 1181 (emphasis added). However, subsequently, Article 23 of CIETAC was amended as
follows by significantly narrowing the scope of its reach:
Where a party applies for conservatory measures pursuant to the laws of the People’s
Republic of China, CIETAC shall forward the party’s application to the competent court
designated by that party in accordance with the law.
New Article 23 of CIETAC - Attachment 1 (emphasis added). Thus, whereas the earlier
version by its very terms applied generally to whenever a party sought provisional pre-arbitral
relief (and specifically directed the party seeking such relief to the "people's court)," the present
wording only provides guidance where such relief is sought within the "laws of the People's
Republic of China"[.] By its very terms, the new language does not supplant the authority of
another tribunal from issuing such provisional relief if subject-matter jurisdiction can properly be
maintained in such tribunal. Therefore, given the material change in language under Article 23
of CIETAC, Plaintiff Global submits that China National, supra, does not operate to bar it from
seeking a pre-arbitral issuance of attachment under Code of Civ. Proc. §483.010, pending
arbitration.
Last but not least, the additional argument can be put forward that the facts in China
National, supra, are materially distinguishable from the case at bar because the facts of the
instant matter clearly accommodate intentional tort claims that arguably were never intended to
be within the scope of the contract's arbitration clause. In other words, while Plaintiff Global
8. REDACTED SAMPLE
Page 8 of 8
does not dispute that the breach of contract claim is arbitrable or legitimately referable to
arbitration before CIETAC, Plaintiff cannot agree that the intentional torts of fraud and
conversion must be submitted to CIETAC. Plaintiff submits that the language, "all disputes in
connection with the Contract," found under paragraph 13.6 of the Contract, intended to bestow
upon CIETAC the authority to arbitrate contract disputes, not tort matters.
RELIEF SOUGHT
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Global prays to be granted the following relief:
1. Issuance of a writ of attachment pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. §483.010, as
Plaintiff has met its burden under Code of Civ. Proc. §484.090(a);
2. Order granting a stay of all proceedings in the action, pursuant to Code of Civ.
Proc. §1281.8(d), pending completion of the arbitration; and
3. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper, including allowing for the
tort claims to proceed, if this Court deems them to be outside the scope of the arbitration clause.
See Code of Civ. Proc. §1281.8(d).
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: _______ , 2015
________________________________________
Attorneys for Plaintiff Global Merchant, LLC