Anthony L. Arciniaga v. General Motors Corporation, Docket No. 05-6299-Cv

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• deciding that parties to two agreement were different when one contract was executed by A, B, and C, and the other was executed by A and B
• holding arbitration clause in one contract did not apply to a related agreement because the parties to the two contracts were different, and the agreements were not mutually dependent, did not reference each other, and served different purposes
• interpreting multiple agreements as one contract where, as here, all the agreements involved the same parties, referred to one another, were mutually dependent, and shared the same purpose
• finding that § 1981 claims are arbitrable
• “[I]t is difficult to overstate the strong federal policy in favor of arbitration, and it is a policy [the Second Circuit] often and emphatically applied.”
• “[I]t is difficult to overstate the strong federal policy in favor of arbitration.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).