Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): "Shortened Arbitration Rules,” which meant that arbitration would proceed based on documents alone. Transatlantic further states that this limitation would be to Amergent’s advantage. 2 . In contrast, cases granting motions to compel arbitration have involved a clear refusal on the part of one party to arbitrate. See, e.g., Crystal Pool AS v. Trefin Tankers Ltd., No. 12 CIV. 9417 RA, 2014 WL 1883506, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2014) (“Trefin Tankers twice failed to respond to Crystal Pool’s requests that it appoint an arbitrator, and it also has failed to appear in or respond to the proceedings in this Court, Trefín Tankers has thus unambiguously manifested a refusal to arbitrate.”); Telesat Canada v. Planetsky, Ltd., No. 12 CIV. 3743 JMF, 2013 WL 592668, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2013) (<HOLDING>); Severstal U.S. Holdings, LLC v. RG Steel, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiff was not entitled to rely on a defendants jurydemand where the defendant had neither a constitutional nor a statutory right to make such a demand (B) holding respondent refused to arbitrate where it neither opposed nor responded to petitioners arbitration demand letter (C) holding that when plaintiff sought arbitration and neither the award nor the arbitration agreement mentioned interest the plaintiff was not entitled to preaward interest (D) holding that an action to compel arbitration accrues only when the respondent unequivocally refuses to arbitrate either by failing to comply with an arbitration demand or by otherwise unambiguously manifesting an intention not to arbitrate the subject matter of the dispute (E) holding that purpose of stay pending arbitration is twofold it relieves the party entitled to arbitrate of the burden of continuing to litigate the issue while the arbitration process is ongoing and it entitles that party to proceed immediately to arbitration without the delay that would be occasioned by an appeal of the district courts order to arbitrate
Output (English): holding that plaintiff was not entitled to rely on a defendants jurydemand where the defendant had neither a constitutional nor a statutory right to make such a demand