Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Idx Incorporated v. Standing Stone Gaming

August 16, 2012

IDX INCORPORATED, PETITIONER,
v.
STANDING STONE GAMING, LLC, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary L. Sharpe Chief Judge

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. Introduction

Plaintiff IDX Incorporated commenced this action against defendant Standing Stone Gaming, LLC (SSG) seeking, among other things, to confirm an award of arbitration. (See Dkt. No. 1.) Pending is IDX's motion seeking leave to file an amended pleading pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, (see Dkt. No. 8), and SSG's cross motion seeking partial dismissal of IDX's Petition and denial of its motion to amend, (see Dkt. No. 13). For the reasons that follow, IDX's motion is denied, SSG's cross motion is granted, the Petition is granted, and the final award of arbitration is confirmed.

II. Background

A. Facts*fn1

IDX, an Arkansas electronics manufacturer, and SSG, a Delaware entity owned by the Oneida Indian Nation that develops and markets software used in the casino gaming industry, entered into an agreement in March 2006. (See Dkt. No. 13, Attach. 2 ¶ 3; Attach. 3 ¶ 3; Attach. 4 at 2.) The agreement provides that disputes and controversies between the parties arising out of or in connection with it shall be submitted to arbitration. (See Dkt. No. 13, Attach. 2 ¶ 3.) On January 15, 2008, IDX filed a demand for arbitration of a dispute under the agreement. (See id. ¶ 4.) Approximately three years later, a final award of arbitration was issued. (See id. ¶ 6.)

B. Procedural History

IDX commenced this action seeking to confirm the arbitration award and "[d]etermine the rights of the parties in accordance with the Final Award and subject to full faith and credit by other courts." (Dkt. No. 1 at 3.) Thereafter, it sought leave to amend its Petition for the purpose of adding respondents "capable of complying with the Final Award and fulfilling SSG's obligations under the . . . Agreement." (Dkt No. 8, Attach. 1 ¶ 5; see generally Dkt. No. 8.) Those proposed party respondents, none of whom are signatories to the agreement, are: Turning Stone Resort and Casino, LLC ("Turning Stone"); Oneida Nation Enterprises, LLC (ONE); Ray Halbritter, chief executive officer of ONE; Frank Riolo, chief executive officer of SSG; Rite-Solutions, Inc., a Rhode Island corporation doing business in New York for SSG and Turning Stone; and Robert Charles Angell, a software programmer employed by Rite-Solutions. (See Dkt. No. 8, Attach. 2 ¶¶ 3-8.) SSG has cross-moved to dismiss the Petition to the extent that it seeks relief beyond confirmation of the final award of arbitration, and opposes IDX's motion seeking leave to file an amended petition. (See generally Dkt. No. 13.)

III. Standards of Review

A. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15

The standard of review under Rule 15 is well settled and will not be repeated here. For a full discussion of the standard, the parties are referred to the courts decision in Zalewski v. T.P. Builders, Inc., No. 1:10-cv-876, 2011 WL 3328549, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2011).

B. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6)

The standard of review under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), which are "substantively identical", Lerner v. Fleet Bank, N.A., 318 F.3d 113, 128 (2d Cir. 2003), are well settled and will not be repeated. For a full discussion of those standards, the parties are referred to the court's decisions in Unangst v. Evans Law Assocs., P.C., 798 F. Supp. 2d 409, 410 (N.D.N.Y. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.