Syscomm Intern. Corp. v. SynOptics Communications, Inc.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
856 F. Supp. 135 (1994)
- Written by Elliot Stern, JD
Facts
Syscomm International (plaintiff) and SynOptics Communications (defendant) were two businesses that entered into commercial arbitration. The arbitration concerned a breach-of-contract claim with respect to a business agreement that the parties had entered into. The agreement contained an arbitration clause under which it was agreed that claims arising out of the agreement would be settled through arbitration. Over the course of the arbitration, Syscomm discovered that SynOptics might have acted in a way that violated federal antitrust laws. Syscomm sued SynOptics for violation of antitrust laws under a private right of action available under antitrust law. Syscomm requested a stay of the ongoing arbitration while the antitrust lawsuit proceeded. SynOptics opposed the stay of the arbitration. SynOptics argued that the antitrust claim was covered under the arbitration clause of the agreement entered into by the parties, and therefore the court should compel arbitration of the antitrust claims instead of a lawsuit. Syscomm argued against the request to compel arbitration of the antitrust claim on the ground that existing precedent in the Second Circuit held that an antitrust claim arising from a domestic transaction may not be settled through arbitration.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wexler, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
