Document for Isaac Dashaun Vs Msk Management, Llc

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                ESX-L-006853-22 08/24/2023 9:32:59 AM Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20232421894


                                                                              Kimberly A. O’Sullivan

                                                                              Castronovo & McKinney, LLC
                                                                              Direct: (973) 998-6119
                                                                              Fax: (973) 920-7924
                                                                              kim@cmlaw.com




                                                 August 24, 2023

 BY eCOURTS & FEDEX
 Hon. Mayra V. Tarantino, J.S.C.
 Hall of Records Building, Room 228
 465 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
 Newark, NJ 07102

        Re:     Chapman v. MSK Management, LLC, Domino’s Inc., et al.
                Docket No. ESX-L-5702-22

 Dear Judge Tarantino:

        This firm represents Plaintiff, Chapman. We write to briefly address the decision in Pharr
 v. Lowe’s, Docket No. A-1056-22 (App. Div. August 21, 2023), which Defendants submitted to
 this Court today alleging it contains a similarly broad and unambiguous arbitration provision as at
 issue here.
       To the contrary, the only thing the decision in Pharr has in common with the pending motion
before this Court is that the plaintiffs are both represented by this firm, Castronovo & McKinney,
LLC. In Pharr, the plaintiff argued that the arbitration provision was inapplicable because (1) there
was no clear waiver of the plaintiff’s right to a jury trial, (2) there was no explanation as to the
difference between arbitration and a hearing in court, (3) the arbitration provision did not cover
hostile work environment and retaliation claims, and (4) there was no mutual assent. None of those
arguments are being made here.
       Rather, here, Plaintiff who was jointly employed by Defendants MSK Management, LLC,
Domino’s Inc., and Jersey Pizza, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”), has argued that the motion to
compel arbitration must be denied because Domino’s Inc. and Jersey Pizza are indisputably not
signatories to the Arbitration Agreement at issue. See Hirsch v. Amper Financial Services, 215 N.J.
174 (2013). Plaintiff further argued that equitable estoppel does not warrant arbitration for Domino’s
as an alleged third-party beneficiary either since Domino’s provided no evidence to sustain the
argument that it is a holding company for vendors. Second, as a holding company, Domino’s is not
a third-party beneficiary to the Arbitration Agreement between Plaintiff and MSK Management.
There is no agency between Domino’s and MSK Management. Domino’s is not the vendor
referenced in the Arbitration Agreement. At most, it is possibly the parent corporation of a vendor.
Plaintiff has argued this is insufficient to overcome Plaintiff’s right to a jury trial here. Finally,
       ESX-L-006853-22 08/24/2023 9:32:59 AM Pg 2 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20232421894

Plaintiff’s last argued that MSK Management, the only party to the Arbitration Agreement, never
actually signed the Agreement.
       Thus, it is clear that the decision in Pharr is irrelevant to the arguments made here.
Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to an Order denying Defendants’ motion to stay the action and
compel arbitration.


                                                      Respectfully submitted,



                                                      KIMBERLY A. O’SULLIVAN

 cc:    All Counsel on Record (by eCourts)




                                 71 Maple Avenue, Morristown, NJ 07960
                                            (973) 920-7888
                                           www.cmlaw.com