2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
10-20-2004 

# N J S ch B d As s n I ns v

. D r uz P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-4304

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" N J S ch Bd As s n I n s v

. Dr uz " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 205. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/205NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT No: 03-4304 NEW JERSEY SCHOO L BOAR DS ASSOCIATION INSU RANC E GROU P,

v. DE AN W ITT ER RE YN OL DS IN C.; DANIE L A. DRUZ Daniel A. Druz, Appellant
On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt

for the Dis tri ct of New Jersey (CivilAction No. 88-5584) Distric t Judg e: Ho n. Joh n W . Bisse ll Argued: September

22, 2004 Be for e: M cK EE , Circuit Judges , RO SE NN and W EIS , Senior Circuit J udges
. (Opinion fi led: Oct ober 20, 2004) DAN A. DRU Z, ESQ. (Argued) Suite 1000 291 East Main Stre et Manasquan, NJ 08060 EDW ARD S. NATH AN (Argued) Stern & Kilcul len 75 Livingston Avenue Roseland, NJ 07068 Attorneyfor Dean Witter Reynolds OPI NION

### 2

M cK EE , Circuit

Judge
. Ap pellan t Dan A. D ruz, arg ues th at the D istrict Co urt abu sed its d iscretion in denyi ng his moti on to li ft a st ay of ar bitr ation t

hat had been i mposed in 1995. For the reasons t hat fol low, we agree and we willvacate t he judgment of t

he District Court

and remand with i nstruc tion to lift the 1995 st ay and refer the matter to arbi tration before the NYSE. Because the fac ts and pr ocedural hist ory are not i n disput e and known to the parti es, we need not

reiteratethem except i nsofar as maybe hel pful to our brief disc uss ion
. Judg e Ba rry explain ed the reaso n fo r impo sing th e 199 5 stay as f ollow s: it being the opinion of the court t hat given Druz’s repres entation that

what he is s eeking t o arbit rate be fore the NYSE is a se parate and independent acti on for mali cious prosecution “concerning [the New Jersey] indict ment” (and wh olly apart f rom wh ether th e partie s hav e agre ed to a rbitrate such a d ispute, an issue as to w hich this court ha s grave do ubts), his cl aim is, at best , premature in t hat forum and i n this or any other forum, it being undisputed that , among other requisites, termin ation o f the c rimina l prose cution favo rable to Dru z is required for a mali cious pr osecuti on acti on to accrue; and it bei ng the opini on of the court that , al though the St ate of New Jersey has not – or h as not yet – intervened in this matter, proc eedin g w ith arbitra tion on the m aliciou s pros ecutio n claim would unduly interfere with an ongoing st ate criminal proceedi ng. Id
. It is theref ore cle ar that Ju dge B arry origina lly impose d the 1 995 stay in1 The parti es have focused our atte ntion on whethe r the Dis tri ct Court’ s ruli ng was contrary t o Howsam v. Dean W itt er , 537 U. S. 70 ( 2002). However, sin ce th e NYSE arbit rati on will pr oceed, i ssues suc h as lache s, es toppel and delaycan now best be addressed within the arbitr ation process.
2 See Un ited S tates v. Sw ift & C o., 286 U.S. 106 (1932) and Republic of Phili ppines v. We sting hou se E lectr ic C o., 43F 3d6 5, (3 d C ir., 19 94)
. 

### 3 order t o ensure that theNYSE arbit rati on did not pr oceed unti l aft er the c onclusi on of the criminalproceedi ngs and rel ated ethical investigati on that ha d been ini tiated aga inst D ruz . Ho we ver , tho se p roc eed ing s ha ve n ow con clud ed in Dr uz’ s fa vor . Based on the re cord before us it appe ars that Druz is not now the subj ect of any pending cri minal or e thical inves tigat ion. Since the1995 staywas imposed in or der to avoi d any confl ict wit h the the n pending cri minal and et hicalinvestigati ons, the stayno longer s erves i ts ori ginal purpose . Accord ingly, we conclu de that the D istrict Court erred in den ying Druz’s moti on t o li ft t

he 19 95 st ay of ar

bit rat ion befo re t

he NYSE. 1 Therefore, we w ill vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand so that the cour t may lift the 199 5-co urt-imp osed stay and r efer th e ma tter to arbit rati on. 2