NettetAccording to Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.'s standard client agreement, Karen Howsam chose to arbitrate her dispute with the company before the National Association of … NettetThe defendant is Karen Howsam, a former investment client of Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. who between 1986 and 1994 bought interests in four limited partnerships. Facts …
Who Decides Arbitral Timeliness? - American University
NettetAmazon.com, Inc., 834 F.3d 220, 229 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 83 (2002)). “[T]he summary judgment standard is appropriate in cases where the District Court is required to determine arbitrability, regardless of whether the relief sought is an order to compel arbitration or to prevent arbitration.” NettetSee Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, 537 U.S. 79, 83, 123 S.Ct. 588, 154 L.Ed.2d 491 (2002); Anders v. Hometown Mortg. Servs., 346 F.3d 1024, 1031 (11th Cir.2003). I agree that, in this case, arbitration agreement language does not delegate the petitioner's challenge to the enforceability of the arbitration agreement to arbitration. trig charters
TLPJ - Briefs - Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds - May 28, 2002
NettetDean Witter argued that the timeliness of Howsam’s arbitration filing is a question of the “arbitrability” of her claims that must be decided by a court. Id . at 7a. The district court granted Howsam’s motion to dismiss Dean Witter’s claims, holding that the arbitration agreement contained sufficient evidence that the parties intended to submit disputes … Nettet27. mar. 2024 · ” Oracle, 724 F.3d at 1072 (quoting Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 83) (emphasis in original); see Dream Theater, Inc. v. Dream Theater, 124 Cal. App. 4th 547, 553 (2004), as modified on denial of reh'g (Dec. 28, 2004) (“ California law is consistent with federal law on the question of who decides disputes … Nettetthe parties had agreed to arbitrate a particular dispute is one for the s to decide. court Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 84 (2002) “[T]he court must resolve any issue that calls into question the formation or applicability of the specific arbitration clause that a party seeks to have the court enforce.” terror facial expression