Opinion
23-CV-05250 (AS)
02-27-2024
PEDRO PAULINO, Plaintiff, v. DAVID KLEINER, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
ARUN SUBRAMANIAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendants in this case moved to compel arbitration and/or dismiss the complaint. Dkt. 21. Plaintiff appears to have consented to arbitration and to staying this action pending arbitration. Dkt. 25. The Court finds that entering a stay is the appropriate course of action here. See Katz v. Cellco P'ship, 794 F.3d 341, 347 (2d Cir. 2015) (concluding “that the text, structure, and underlying policy of the FAA mandate a stay of proceedings when all of the claims in an action have been referred to arbitration and a stay requested.”; Graham v. Bloomberg L.P., 2023 WL 6037974, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2023) (explaining the “sound reasons for granting a stay versus dismissal”).
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at Dkt. 21 and stay this case.
SO ORDERED.