Sourcing Unlimited, Inc. v. Asimco International, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that refusing jurisdiction because defendants sought dismissal rather than to compel arbitration would \elevate[] a label over substance\
• compelling arbitration where plaintiff signatory's claims against nonsignatory defendants all derived from benefits the plaintiff alleged were due under its agreement with signatory
• signatory to arbitration agreement may be compelled to arbitrate claim against nonsignatory when that claim is intertwined widi the agreement containing the arbitration provision
• \The [signatory] plaintiff's actual dependence on the underlying contract in making out the claim against the nonsignatory defendant is therefore always the sine qua non of an appropriate situation for applying equitable estoppel [against the plaintiff].\ (alteration in original
• \Federal courts 'have been willing to estop a signatory from avoiding arbitration with a nonsignatory when the issues the nonsignatory is seeking to resolve in arbitration are intertwined with the agreement that the estopped party has signed.'\ (emphasis omitted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).