Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Southwest District
Torrance Dept. M
Antonio Stewart, Plaintiff,
Case No.: 20TRCV00222 vs. [Tentative] RULING
Prosum, Inc. et al., Defendants.
Hearing Date: August 7, 2020
Moving Party: Defendant Prosum, Inc.
Responding Parties: None [Plaintiff Antonio Stewart]
Motion to compel arbitration
The court considered the moving papers. There were no opposition and reply filed as of August 4, 2020.
RULING
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stays this action pending the completion of the arbitration.
BACKGROUND
This is a breach of contract and fraud action involving Plaintiff Antonio Stewart (“Plaintiff”) arising out of an employment contract for an information technology position.
Plaintiff alleges that he had competing, escalating offers for employment from Neustar, Inc. and Defendant Prosum, Inc. (“Defendant”). Plaintiff decided to accept Prosum’s offer, but later Prosum informed Plaintiff that it co
Hearing Date
August 07, 2020
Type
Contractual Fraud (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Southwest District
Torrance Dept. M
Antonio Stewart, Plaintiff,
Case No.: 20TRCV00222 vs. [Tentative] RULING
Prosum, Inc. et al., Defendants.
Hearing Date: August 7, 2020
Moving Party: Defendant Prosum, Inc.
Responding Parties: None [Plaintiff Antonio Stewart]
Motion to compel arbitration
The court considered the moving papers. There were no opposition and reply filed as of August 4, 2020.
RULING
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stays this action pending the completion of the arbitration.
BACKGROUND
This is a breach of contract and fraud action involving Plaintiff Antonio Stewart (“Plaintiff”) arising out of an employment contract for an information technology position.
Plaintiff alleges that he had competing, escalating offers for employment from Neustar, Inc. and Defendant Prosum, Inc. (“Defendant”). Plaintiff decided to accept Prosum’s offer, but later Prosum informed Plaintiff that it co