This nasty dispute between an ex-Steinger, Iscoe attorney and her former PI firm has all the makings of a rollicking ride in district court before Judge D.
The judge has already denied a motion to seal the court record, and the defendant has come out swinging with a Rule 11 motion for bringing the suit in federal court:
Unfortunately, it is all too common that parties subject to arbitration agreements abuse our system of justice to extort money from Defendants who have little choice but to spend tremendous sums defending these types of frivolous claims, which will undoubtedly be sent back to arbitration. Here, this court has ringside seats to the abuse and frivolity of Chulock’s claims from the very outset of this litigation (i.e., we do not have to wait and see what is obvious at a high cost to Defendants and at the expense of our judicial system). Today, this court has the obligation to prevent multi-hour hearing and motion practice by rigorously enforcing arbitration agreements as it has historically done in the past. The message will be either that such behavior will not be tolerated in this district, and when it occurs the lawyer responsible will be required to bear the consequences of her actions, or that lawyers in this District can feel free to use their law license to file baseless claims and extort money in the fact of arbitration agreements, as there will be no consequence for the intentional and knowing pursuit of baseless, frivolous or even impossible claims.Hmm, it's an important principle for sure, but not sure the fate of the world depends on the outcome of a motion to compel arbitration.
You can read Ms. Chulock's whistleblower and gender discrimination allegations -- which are still in the public record -- here.
BTW, the status of the proposed Arbitration Fairness Act is