DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION

GERALD LEBOVITS, J.S.C.

This court previously dismissed all claims by plaintiffs, Tratado de Libre Comercio, LLC and Pedro Chavez (collectively, Tratado), against defendant Cameron Wendt, by order dated November 25, 2019, in motion sequence 008. Tratado now moves for reargument and renewal of this court's November 25 order (motion sequence 009). The court grants Tratado leave to reargue and renew, but on reargument and renewal adheres to its prior order.

I. Tratado's Motion for Leave to Reargue

Tratado argues first that this court's November 25, 2019, order overlooked that Tratado did not simply oppose Wendt's CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss on its merits, but also cross-moved to stay further consideration of Tratado's claims against Wendt pending resolution of a related arbitration proceeding. Tratado is correct that the court's November 25 order did not address the arguments on Tratado's cross-motion to stay. This court therefore grants leave to reargue. On reargument, though, this court concludes, in its discretion, that a stay of proceedings as to Tratado's claims against Wendt is unwarranted.

Tratado argues first that this court should have granted a stay under CPLR 7503(a). (See NYSCEF No. 204, at 4-5.) But that provision was not implicated by Tratado's cross-motion. CPLR 7503(a) sets out the procedure by which a party "aggrieved by the failure of another to arbitrate may apply for an order compelling arbitration," and provides that if the motion to compel is granted, the court shall stay that portion of the pending action that is referable to arbitration. Here, Tratado's cross-motion on motion sequence 008 did not seek to compel Wendt to participate in arbitration. (See NYSCEF No. 177 [notice of cross-motion for an order "granting a stay of proceedings against defendant Cameron Wendt"].) Instead Tratado sought only a stay of proceedings in this court as to Wendt because Tratado's "claims against the respondents in the pending arbitration include" closely-related "claims against Wendt." (NYSCEF No. 183, at 3-4; see also NYSCEF No. 177.) In the absence of a motion to compel arbitration, Tratado's stay request was governed not by CPLR 7503, but by CPLR 2201.1

CPLR 2201 provides that "the court in which an action is pending may grant a stay of proceedings in a proper case, upon such terms as may be just." In deciding whether to grant a stay, courts should give "due consideration [to] the goals of judicial economy, orderly procedure and the prevention of inequitable results." (Belopolsky v Renew Data Corp., 41 A.D.3d 322, 322 [1st Dept 2007].)

Tratado argues that since this court directed that Tratado's claims against the other defendants in this action must be resolved in arbitration, the court should stay Tratado's claims against Wendt to permit them to be resolved in arbitration as well, rather than decide Wendt's CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss those claims. This court disagrees.

Tratado brought the present action well before it commenced arbitration proceedings against Wendt. Indeed, the record suggests that Tratado only brought claims against Wendt in the arbitral forum because other defendants in the present action—not Wendt—successfully moved to compel arbitration of Tratado's claims against them, based on an arbitration agreement that they—but not Wendt—had signed with Tratado. (See Decision & Order, NYSCEF No. 141; Decision & Order, NYSCEF No. 151 [granting motions to compel arbitration brought by other defendants].) And Wendt has reserved his right to ask the arbitrator to dismiss Tratado's arbitral claims against him on the ground that the arbitrator lacks jurisdiction over him as a nonsignatory. (See NYSCEF No. 205, at 4-6.) In this action, on the other hand, Wendt's motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7) has been filed, briefed, argued, and decided by this court.2 Staying any consideration of a motion that this court has already held should be granted would hardly conserve judicial resources.

II. Tratado's Motion for Leave to Renew

Nor does this court agree with Tratado that the court should, in essence, vacate its dismissal of Tratado's claims against Wendt to avoid the possibility of inconsistent results. Tratado asserts that this court's November 25, 2019, order on motion sequence 008 dismissing the claims against Wendt in this forum conflicts with a later order by the arbitrator declining to permit respondents in the arbitration to file dispositive motions. Tratado seeks leave to renew to put that order before this court. This court grants leave to renew to consider the arbitral order on which Tratado relies; but on renewal concludes that the order does not alter this court's conclusions on motion sequence 008.

The arbitral order on which Tratado relies denied permission to the respondents in the arbitration to file certain dispositive motions at that time. (See Arbitration Order, NYSCEF No. 202, at 2.) The order expressly reserved the question whether respondents would be permitted to file those and other dispositive motions—including a motion to dismiss the claims against Wendt for lack of arbitral jurisdiction—once Tratado had filed an amended statement of claim and supporting materials. And the order expressed no opinion on the merits of a potential motion to dismiss for lack of arbitral jurisdiction. (See id. at 3-4.) That order is thus not inconsistent with this court's conclusion that the claims against Wendt fail to state a cause of action on the merits.

Additionally, as reflected in this court's November 25, 2019, order on the prior motion, this court had little difficulty concluding that the extremely thin allegations against Wendt in Tratado's complaint here failed to state a cause of action. (See NYSCEF No. 186.) This court declines to leave those allegations outstanding against Wendt nonetheless on the possibility that the arbitrator will later (i) rule that he has jurisdiction over Tratado's claims against Wendt and then (ii) disagree with this court about the sufficiency of Tratado's allegations against Wendt that are common to both the judicial and arbitral proceedings.3

Staying adjudication of Tratado's claims against Wendt in this action would neither further judicial economy, preserve the orderly resolution of the disputes between the parties, nor avoid a significant possibility of inconsistent or inequitable results. This court therefore declines, in its discretion, to vacate the court's prior dismissal of Tratado's claims against Wendt or grant Tratado's CPLR 2201 cross-motion to stay.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that Tratado is granted leave to reargue and renew this court's order, dated November 25, 2019, that dismissed Tratado's claims against defendant Wendt; and it is further

ORDERED that on reargument and renewal, this court adheres to its November 25, 2019 order.