According to the Opinion, the Defendants filed a Petition to Compel Arbitration. The trial court denied this petition after noting the other Defendants had gained advantages by participating in the judicial process, including with respect to completing discovery and motions practice.
More specifically, the Defendants have filed three (3) separate sets of Preliminary Objections. It was only after the third set of Preliminary Objections was overruled that the Defendants finally asserted the issue of Arbitration in their Answer to the Complaint and in a Petition to Compel Arbitration.
Also, the Defendants had not raised the issue of Arbitration in the previously filed Preliminary Objections.
As such, the court ruled that, although there was a valid Arbitration agreement between the parties that may have required certain claims in this litigation to be submitted to Arbitration, the Defendants’ participation in this litigation was held to confirm an acceptance of the judicial process and a waiver of the right to arbitrate.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Oct. 23, 2023).
Also, the Defendants had not raised the issue of Arbitration in the previously filed Preliminary Objections.
As such, the court ruled that, although there was a valid Arbitration agreement between the parties that may have required certain claims in this litigation to be submitted to Arbitration, the Defendants’ participation in this litigation was held to confirm an acceptance of the judicial process and a waiver of the right to arbitrate.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Oct. 23, 2023).
Source of image: www.unsplash.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.