UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

WORTH GROUP, INC., and 

ANDREW WILSHIRE,

Petitioner,

CASE NO.

vs.

ROSALYN MORALES,

Respondent.

____________________________________/

WORTH GROUP INC.’S AND ANDREW WILSHIRE’S PETITION: 

(A) TO COMPEL ROSALYN MORALES TO SUBMIT HER ARBITRATION CLAIM TO 

JAMS IN PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA IN ACCORD WITH THE PARTIES’ 

WRITTEN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT; OR 

(B) TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR WITH THE QUALIFICATIONS SET FORTH IN 

THE PARTIES’ ARBITRATION AGREEMENT AND DIRECT THE PARTIES TO 

ARBITRATE IN ACCORD WITH THEIR AGREEMENT; AND 

IN EITHER CASE, TO STAY THE ARBITRATION PENDING IN CALIFORNIA 

Rosalyn Morales agreed that if she had a dispute with Worth Group, Inc. and Andrew 

Wilshire: (a) she would submit her claims to JAMS in Palm Beach County, Florida for 

arbitration; and (b) a retired Florida federal or state court judge would preside over the 

arbitration in Palm Beach County, Florida. Ms. Morales breached this agreement by 

consolidating her claims against Worth Group and Mr. Wilshire into a pending JAMS arbitration 

in California where the arbitrator is not a retired Florida federal or state court judge.

Under the circumstances, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., 

Worth Group and Andrew Wilshire petition this Court to enjoin the California arbitration, and 

either: (a) compel Rosalyn Morales to submit her claim to JAMS in Palm Beach County, Florida 

THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN JAMES BINHAK, P.L.L.C., 

One Southeast Third Ave., Suite 2600, Miami, FL Tel. (305) 361.5500

Case 9:22-cv-81372-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 1 of 26
in accord with terms of the parties’ written arbitration agreement (so the parties can select an 

appropriate arbitrator and conduct the proceedings in Palm Beach County, Florida), or (b) 

appoint an appropriate arbitrator (a retired Florida federal or state court judge) and direct the 

parties to proceed under the arbitration agreement. In either case, Worth Group and Mr. Wilshire 

ask this Court to stay the arbitration proceedings pending in California.

1. Pursuant to a written contract, Rosalyn Morales obtained loans from Worth Group to 

finance her purchases of silver from another independent company, First National Bullion, 

LLC (“FNB”). Ms. Morales agreed to arbitrate any disputes with Worth Group or certain 

affiliated individuals (including Andrew Wilshire) only under specific conditions including: 

(i) She would submit any dispute to JAMS in Palm Beach County, Florida; 

(ii) The arbitrator would be a retired member of the Florida Circuit Court or 

a United States District Court in Florida;

(iii) All arbitration proceedings would occur in Palm Beach County, Florida; 

and

(iv) The Federal Arbitration Act and Florida law would govern.

2. Ms. Morales initially breached this agreement by failing to submit her claim to JAMS in 

Palm Beach County. Instead, (in a JAMS proceeding she originally submitted against FNB 

in California under an arbitration agreement she signed with FNB), Ms. Morales asked the 

arbitrator to add Worth Group as a party.

3. After completely ignoring the parties’ arbitration agreement, the arbitrator: (a) allowed Ms. 

Morales to amend her complaint, and (b) consolidated the pending FNB dispute and the 

Worth Group dispute. Next, the arbitrator, who is not a retired Florida federal or state 

judge, decided he will preside over the arbitration in California. 

2

THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN JAMES BINHAK, P.L.L.C., 

One Southeast Third Ave., Suite 2600, Miami, FL Tel. (305) 361.5500

Case 9:22-cv-81372-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 2 of 26
4. Given these rulings, Ms. Morales has continued to breach her arbitration agreement by 

refusing to arbitrate: (a) with a retired Florida federal or state court judge; and (b) in Palm 

Beach County, Florida.

5. As a result, unless this petition is granted, Worth Group will be forced to participate in an 

arbitration to which it never consented. In particular, because Ms. Morales never 

submitted her claim before JAMS in Palm Beach County, Florida, she denied Worth Group 

the following rights under their arbitration agreement: (a) the ability to select an arbitrator 

through the JAMS rules (which would have allowed Worth to select from a list of 

appropriate candidates rather than being required to use a previously selected arbitrator); 

(b) to have an arbitrator who possesses the qualifications in the parties’ arbitration 

agreement; and (c) to conduct arbitration proceedings in Palm Beach County, Florida.

6. Under the circumstances, the Federal Arbitration Act grants this Court jurisdiction to 

enforce Ms. Morales’ arbitration agreement. The Court should enforce the agreement by 

enjoining the arbitration in California, and either: (a) order Ms. Morales to submit her 

claim to JAMS in Palm Beach County, Florida (so the parties can select an appropriate 

arbitrator and conduct the proceedings in Palm Beach County, Florida); or (b) appoint a 

retired Florida federal or state court judge to arbitrate the dispute under the parties’ 

agreement. In either case, the Court should stay the California arbitration proceedings.

Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue

7. Petitioner Worth Group, Inc. is a Florida corporation whose principal place of business is 

Palm Beach County, Florida.

3

THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN JAMES BINHAK, P.L.L.C., 

One Southeast Third Ave., Suite 2600, Miami, FL Tel. (305) 361.5500

Case 9:22-cv-81372-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 3 of 26
8. Petitioner, Andrew Wilshire is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida, and a citizen of 

Florida.

9. Respondent Rosalyn Morales is a resident of San Diego, California, and a citizen of 

California.

10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this claim because Worth Group and Mr. 

Wilshire are both citizens of Florida and Ms. Morales is a citizen of California (i.e., the 

parties are from different states), and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 

exclusive of interest and costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

11. Venue is proper in this Court under section 4 of the FAA because the arbitration provision 

requires that any and all disputes and arbitration proceedings occur in Palm Beach County, 

Florida. See 9 U.S.C. § 4; Sterling Financial Group, Inc. v. Hammer, 393 F.3d 1223, 1225 

(11th Cir. 2004); Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Lauer, 49 F. 3d 323, 327 (7th 

Cir. 1995) (“where the arbitration agreement contains a forum selection clause, only the 

district court in that forum can issue a § 4 order compelling arbitration.”) (emphasis in 

original).

12. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Ms. Morales because she has “breach[ed] a 

contract in this state by failing to perform acts required by the contract to be performed in 

this state.” See Loan, Security and Storage Agreement between Worth Group and Ms. 

Morales, ¶ 34 (“You agree that for all purposes you have entered into this Agreement and 

the making of this Agreement has occurred in Palm Beach County, Florida, 

notwithstanding any events that may occur outside Palm Beach County, including the 

manner, timing or location of the delivery or receipt of the acceptance of this Agreement by 

4

THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN JAMES BINHAK, P.L.L.C., 

One Southeast Third Ave., Suite 2600, Miami, FL Tel. (305) 361.5500

Case 9:22-cv-81372-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 4 of 26
any party hereto. You also agree that the following events, among others, occurred in Palm 

Beach County, Florida: the negotiation of this contract will have taken place and have been 

completed in Palm Beach County, Florida; the contract will be executed in Palm Beach 

County, Florida; WORTH is located in Palm Beach County, Florida; all deposits and 

payments made by [Ms. Morales] will be delivered to and paid in Palm Beach County, 

Florida; all loans made by WORTH will be made from and paid in Palm Beach County, 

Florida; and the written confirmation of each transaction and all statements of account will 

be generated in and transmitted from Palm Beach County, Florida.”). 

13. In particular, Ms. Morales breached her agreement with Worth Group by refusing to 

“submit to final and binding arbitration before JAMS, or its successor, in Palm Beach 

County, Florida.” See Fla. Stat. 48.193(9); Loan, Security and Storage Agreement between 

Worth Group and Ms. Morales, ¶ 35(a).

Ms. Morales Signs An Arbitration Agreement With Worth Group

14. Pursuant to a Purchase and Sale Agreement, Ms. Morales purchased silver from First 

National Bullion, LLC (the “FNB Agreement”). A copy of the Purchase and Sale 

Agreement is attached as Exhibit 1.

15. To finance her purchase, Ms. Morales borrowed money from Worth Group, a separate and 

independent company from FNB. To govern her relationship with Worth Group, Ms. 

Morales signed a Loan, Security and Storage Agreement which set forth the terms of her 

loans and the storage of her precious metals (“The Worth Agreement”). A copy of the 

Worth Agreement is attached as Exhibit 2.

5

THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN JAMES BINHAK, P.L.L.C., 

One Southeast Third Ave., Suite 2600, Miami, FL Tel. (305) 361.5500

Case 9:22-cv-81372-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 5 of 26
16. The Worth Agreement includes an arbitration provision which identifies specific 

requirements for resolving disputes between Ms. Morales and Worth Group (including Mr. 

Wilshire as Worth Group’s shareholder). The agreement requires: (1) the parties to submit 

any dispute with JAMS in Palm Beach County, Florida; (2) that all proceedings occur in 

Palm Beach County, Florida; (3) that all arbitrators be retired judges from Florida Circuit 

Court or a U.S. District Court in Florida; and (4) that Florida law and the Federal 

Arbitration Act govern the proceedings. The relevant portions of the Worth Agreement 

say:

Arbitration of Claims. The parties agree that any and all disputes, claims or 

controversies arising out of or relating to any transaction between or among 

them or to the breach, termination, enforcement, interpretation, validity or 

alleged unconscionability of any part of this Agreement shall be subject to and 

governed by the Federal Arbitration Act and shall be submitted to final and 

binding arbitration before JAMS, or its successor, in Palm Beach County, 

Florida.

Additional Participants in this Agreement to Arbitrate. All shareholders, 

officers and directors of WORTH, and all employees, representatives, agents 

and affiliates of WORTH, past present or future, are beneficiaries of, and 

participants in, this arbitration agreement. They will have the same rights and 

obligations under this arbitration agreement as the parties, to the extent that 

these arbitration agreement beneficiaries are named as respondents. In any 

dispute, claim or controversy subject to or arising from this Agreement, or 

could have been so named.

You and WORTH agree that Palm Beach County, Florida is a mutually 

and reasonably convenient place for any arbitration hearing concerning 

disputes relating to your transactions with WORTH or to this Agreement 

and that all arbitration proceedings subject to this Agreement shall occur 

before the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Society (“JAMS”) in Palm 

Beach County, Florida.

Arbitrators. The parties agree that a single arbitrator shall be selected to 

adjudicate all disputes unless otherwise provided for in this Agreement. The 

selection and replacement of an arbitrator or arbitrators shall be in accordance 

6

THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN JAMES BINHAK, P.L.L.C., 

One Southeast Third Ave., Suite 2600, Miami, FL Tel. (305) 361.5500

Case 9:22-cv-81372-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 6 of 26
with the JAMS Rules, except that: (i) each arbitrator shall be a retired judge of 

either the Florida Circuit Court or a United States District Court located in 

Florida, and (ii) any party may require a panel of three neutral arbitrators.

Arbitration Rules and Fees. Except as otherwise provided herein, the 

arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of JAMS 

Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures in effect at the time of the 

Borrower’s execution of this Agreement.”

Exhibit 2, pg. 6-7, ¶ 35 (emphasis in original).

Ms. Morales Breaches The Arbitration Agreement With Worth

17. In May 2021, Ms. Morales filed a Statement of Claim with the JAMS office in Los 

Angeles, California and requested the location of any hearing to be San Diego, California. 

In this Statement of Claim, Mr. Morales named as respondents: First National Bullion, 

Jonathan Cavuoto, Mark Gonzalez, Celestino Rabbini, and 100 John Does.

18. In July 2021, Hon. Franz E. Miller (a retired judge from the Orange County, California 

Superior Court) became the arbitrator for the FNB matter.

19. In May 2022, instead of submitting a claim against Worth Group before JAMS in Palm 

Beach County, Florida, Ms. Morales filed a First Amended Statement of Claims with the 

Los Angeles office of JAMS and requested leave to include Worth Group and Andrew 

Wilshire as respondents. In this way, Ms Morales breached the Worth Agreement because 

she did not submit her claim against Worth Group to JAMS in Palm Beach County, Florida.

The Arbitrator Ignored the Arbitration Agreement

20. When it learned of the proposed amendment, Worth Group filed a letter with the arbitrator 

to object. Initially, Worth Group explained Ms. Morales’ arbitration agreement required 

7

THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN JAMES BINHAK, P.L.L.C., 

One Southeast Third Ave., Suite 2600, Miami, FL Tel. (305) 361.5500

Case 9:22-cv-81372-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 7 of 26
her to submit her claim to JAMS in Palm Beach County, Florida, and for the proceedings to 

occur in Palm Beach County, Florida. The objection says:

Ms. Morales’ arbitration agreement with Worth Group and Mr. Wilshire 

requires her to submit her claim to JAMS in Palm Beach, Florida, and for the 

proceedings to occur in Palm Beach, Florida. 

Specifically, in the Worth Group contract attached as Exhibit 13 to the 

Statement of Claim, Ms. Morales agreed that “any and all disputes, claims or 

controversies arising out of or relating to any transaction between or among 

them or to the breach, termination, enforcement, interpretation, validity or 

alleged unconscionability of any part of this Agreement shall be subject to and 

governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, and shall be submitted to final and 

binding arbitration before JAMS, or its successor, in Palm Beach County, 

Florida.” See Exhibit 13, ¶ 35(a) (emphasis added). 

Ms. Morales also agreed that “all proceedings subject to this Agreement shall 

occur before the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Society (“JAMS”) in 

Palm Beach County, Florida.” See Exhibit 13, ¶ 34. 

Given these explicit terms, Ms. Morales must submit to the Florida JAMS 

office her claim against Worth Group and Mr. Wilshire (who has the same 

arbitration rights as Worth Group by virtue of paragraph 35(b)). The Florida 

JAMS office can appoint an arbitrator to resolve her claim in Palm Beach. 

Florida.

A copy of the objection is attached as Exhibit 3.

21. After a telephonic conference (during which counsel for Worth Group and Mr. Wilshire 

specially appeared solely to object to being included in this arbitration), the arbitrator 

determined it was appropriate to allow Ms. Morales’ amendment. The arbitrator further 

ordered: “After service has been effectuated, the New Respondents shall, within 15 days 

after service, file and serve a formal response and/or formal objections to the amended 

claim, including any jurisdictional and/or venue arguments... .” A copy of the Order is 

attached as Exhibit 4.

8

THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN JAMES BINHAK, P.L.L.C., 

One Southeast Third Ave., Suite 2600, Miami, FL Tel. (305) 361.5500

Case 9:22-cv-81372-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 8 of 26
22. After the amendment, Worth Group filed a motion to dismiss the arbitration. In this 

submission, a reply, and during a hearing on the matter, Worth Group explained Ms. 

Morales was breaching her arbitration agreement which required her to: submit her 

Statement of Claim to JAMS in Palm Beach County, Florida; to arbitrate only before a 

“retired judge of either the Florida Circuit Court or a United States District Court located in 

Florida... .”; and to arbitrate only in Palm Beach County, Florida.

23. The arbitrator denied the motion to dismiss. As an initial matter, the arbitrator ignored the 

undisputed fact that Worth Group and Ms. Morales specifically agreed to appoint a retired 

Florida federal or state judge as their arbitrator. Next, the arbitrator determined that Worth 

Group would have to arbitrate its dispute with Ms. Morales in California— again, in direct 

violation of the Worth Agreement.

24. The arbitrator wrote that “the motions are premised in part on the fallacious notion that the 

location of the arbitration hearing claimant seeks is jurisdictional. It is not.” The arbitrator 

also wrote both parties agreed JAMS would officiate their arbitration, so the only issue 

presented was whether Ms. Morales would have to arbitrate in two states over the same 

transaction. Further, the arbitrator wrote the JAMS rules allow an arbitrator to consolidate 

multiple arbitrations and then determine the location of the arbitration and override the 

parties’ right to designate an arbitrator. The arbitrator wrote:

The parties also appear to agree the FNB agreement specifies disputes will be 

arbitrated by a JAMS arbitrator in California, and the moving parties' 

agreement specifies disputes will be arbitrated by a retired judge-JAMS 

arbitrator in Florida.

9

THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN JAMES BINHAK, P.L.L.C., 

One Southeast Third Ave., Suite 2600, Miami, FL Tel. (305) 361.5500

Case 9:22-cv-81372-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 9 of 26
Thus, both agreements specify any arbitration will be handled by JAMS. Thus, 

the issue boils down to whether Morales must endure to arbitration in two 

states regarding the same transaction.

The arbitrator previously consolidated the two arbitration proceedings. JAMS 

Comprehensive Arbitration Rules & Procedures, rule 6(e)(iii) provides in 

relevant part:

“Where a Demand or Demands for Arbitration is or are submitted naming 

Parties that are not identical to the Parties in the existing Arbitration or 

Arbitrations, JAMS may decide that the new case or cases shall be 

consolidated into one or more of the pending proceedings and referred to one 

of the Arbitrators or panels of Arbitrators already appointed ....

“Unless applicable law provides otherwise, where JAMS decides to 

consolidate a proceeding into a pending Arbitration, the Parties to the 

consolidated case or cases will be deemed to have waived their right to 

designate an Arbitrator as well as any contractual provision with respect to the 

site of the Arbitration.”

In this matter, all of the parties agree via their arbitration agreements that any 

arbitration would be handled by JAMS. In doing so, they agreed, at least 

implicitly, to be bound by rule 6.

Moreover, JAMS rule 19 give the arbitrator the power, after consulting with 

the parties (which the arbitrator has done via this motion to dismiss), to 

“determine the date, time and location of the Hearing.”

Copy of the Order is attached as Exhibit 5.

25. The arbitrator’s ruling ignored and failed to interpret the Worth Agreement in multiple 

ways. 

26. First, even though the arbitrator noted the Worth Agreement and the FNB Agreement were 

separate contracts, he completely ignored the Worth Agreement. The arbitrator enforced 

the FNB arbitration agreement against Worth Group. In this way, the arbitrator ignored and 

failed to interpret the Worth Agreement in its entirety.

10

THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN JAMES BINHAK, P.L.L.C., 

One Southeast Third Ave., Suite 2600, Miami, FL Tel. (305) 361.5500

Case 9:22-cv-81372-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 10 of 26
27. Second, the arbitrator (a retired California judge) determined he could serve as arbitrator 

because the Worth Agreement “specifies disputes will be arbitrated by a retired judgeJAMS arbitrator in Florida.” In fact, the Worth Agreement requires “each arbitrator shall 

be a retired judge of either the Florida Circuit Court or a United States District Court 

located in Florida.” In this way, the arbitrator again ignored and failed to interpret the 

Worth Agreement’s express terms.

28. Third, the arbitrator never addressed the Worth Agreement’s requirement that all of Ms. 

Morales’ claims be “submitted to final and binding arbitration before JAMS, or its 

successor, in Palm Beach County, Florida. Once again, the arbitrator ignored and failed to 

interpret the Worth Agreement’s express terms.

29. Fourth, the arbitrator ordered that the arbitration hearing will proceed in California with 

some or all witnesses to appear by Zoom. In this way, the arbitrator again ignored and 

failed to interpret the Worth Agreement’s express terms.

30. Fifth, the arbitrator justified ignoring the parties’ arbitration agreement based on the JAMS 

Rules 6 and 19. According to the arbitrator, these rules allowed him to consolidate 

arbitrations (after consulting with the parties), and with the consolidation complete, the 

parties are deemed to have waived their “right to designate an arbitrator as well as any 

contractual provision with respect to the site of the arbitration.”

31. In this way, the arbitrator again entirely ignored the parties’ agreement. Specifically, Ms. 

Morales agreed the Worth Agreement’s provisions would override any JAMS rules if there 

was a conflict. The Worth Agreement says: “Except as otherwise provided herein, the 

arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of JAMS Comprehensive 

11

THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN JAMES BINHAK, P.L.L.C., 

One Southeast Third Ave., Suite 2600, Miami, FL Tel. (305) 361.5500

Case 9:22-cv-81372-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 11 of 26
Arbitration Rules and Procedures in effect at the time of the Borrower’s execution of this 

Agreement.” Exhibit 2, pg. 6, ¶ 35(d).

32. The arbitrator also ignored and failed to interpret the specific provision of the Worth 

Agreement that overrides the JAMS rules regarding the arbitrator’s qualifications. Ms. 

Morales agreed: “The selection and replacement of an arbitrator or arbitrators shall be in 

accordance with the JAMS rules, except that: (i) each arbitrator shall be a retired judge of 

either the Florida Circuit Court or a United States District Court located in Florida.” 

Exhibit 2, pg. 6, ¶ 35(e). 

33. In addition to ignoring and failing to interpret the Worth Agreement, the arbitrator ignored 

and failed to interpret the JAMS rules themselves. First, JAMS Rule 6 does not allow the 

arbitrator to consolidate cases (and by doing so override any agreement regarding the 

selection of the arbitrator and venue) unless the consolidation is consistent with the parties’ 

agreement and the applicable law. See JAMS Rule 6(e) (“Unless the Parties' Agreement 

or applicable law provides otherwise, JAMS, if it determines that the Arbitrations so filed 

have common issues of fact or law, may consolidate Arbitrations in the following 

instances:... .”) (emphasis added). In this case, the Worth Agreement requires a retired 

Florida federal or state judge to arbitrate and arbitration in Palm Beach, Florida. For these 

reasons, consolidation is inconsistent with the parties’ arbitration agreement. Again, the 

arbitrator ignored and failed to interpret these provisions.

34. Second, the arbitrator ignored and failed to interpret JAMS Rule 2. This rule requires that 

the parties’ arbitration agreement prevails when there is any conflict with the JAMS rules. 

JAMS Rule 2 says: 

12

THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN JAMES BINHAK, P.L.L.C., 

One Southeast Third Ave., Suite 2600, Miami, FL Tel. (305) 361.5500

Case 9:22-cv-81372-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 12 of 26
The Parties may agree on any procedures not specified herein or in lieu of 

these Rules that are consistent with the applicable law and JAMS policies 

(including, without limitation, Rules 15(i), 30 and 31). The Parties shall 

promptly notify JAMS of any such Party-agreed procedures and shall confirm 

such procedures in writing. The Party-agreed procedures shall be enforceable 

as if contained in these Rules.

35. Worth Group notified the arbitrator of the submission, arbitrator qualification, and venue 

provisions in the Worth Agreement. The arbitrator subsequently ignored and refused to 

interpret these provisions.

36. Along these lines, the arbitrator ignored and failed to interpret JAMS Rule 4 which 

requires the arbitrator to follow the applicable law when the rules conflict with the 

applicable law. JAMS Rule 4 says: “If any of these Rules, or modification of these Rules 

agreed to by the Parties, is determined to be in conflict with a provision of applicable law, 

the provision of law will govern over the Rule in conflict, and no other Rule will be 

affected.”

37. In short, the arbitrator has utterly ignored and failed to interpret the Worth Group 

Agreement. He has also placed himself as arbitrator even though he did not follow the 

parties’ agreed selection process, and he does not meet the parties’ specified qualifications. 

By doing so, the arbitrator violated the FAA’s express provisions.

The Federal Arbitration Act Requires this Court 

to Enforce the Parties’ Arbitration Agreement

38. The FAA grants district courts jurisdiction to enforce the terms of arbitration contracts. See, 

e.g., AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643, 

648-49 (1986). Section 4 of the FAA provides:

13

THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN JAMES BINHAK, P.L.L.C., 

One Southeast Third Ave., Suite 2600, Miami, FL Tel. (305) 361.5500

Case 9:22-cv-81372-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 13 of 26
A party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of another to 

arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration may petition any United 

States district court ... for an order directing that such arbitration proceed in 

the manner provided for in such agreement... . The court shall hear the 

parties, and upon being satisfied that the making of the agreement for 

arbitration or the failure to comply therewith is not in issue, the court shall 

make an order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance 

with the terms of the agreement. The hearing and proceedings, under such 

agreement, shall be within the district in which the petition for an order 

directing such arbitration is filed.

9 U.S.C. § 4.

39. Further, when parties fail to abide by other provisions in their arbitration agreements, 

district courts may stay an inappropriate arbitration proceeding and order the parties to 

proceed in accord with their agreement. Sterling Financial Investment Group, Inc. v. 

Hammer, 393 F. 3d 1223, 1226 (11th Cir. 2004) (“The district court properly exercised its 

jurisdiction pursuant to section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act in staying arbitration in 

Houston, Texas and compelling arbitration in Boca Raton, Florida.”).

The Court Should Enforce the Parties’ Arbitration Agreement by Either: 

(a) Ordering Ms. Morales to Submit her Claim to JAMS in Palm Beach County, Florida; or 

(b) Appointing a Retired Florida Federal or State Judge to Conduct the Arbitration Under 

JAMS Rules in Palm Beach County, Florida.

40. Given these circumstances, the Court should enforce the Worth Agreement by either: (a) 

ordering Ms. Morales to submit her claim to JAMS in Palm Beach County, Florida and 

have the parties proceed as they agreed; or (b) appoint a retired Florida federal or state 

court judge to resolve the dispute in Palm Beach County, Florida under the provisions of 

the Worth Agreement.

14

THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN JAMES BINHAK, P.L.L.C., 

One Southeast Third Ave., Suite 2600, Miami, FL Tel. (305) 361.5500

Case 9:22-cv-81372-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 14 of 26
Arbitration Law

41. Under the FAA and Florida law, an arbitrator’s jurisdiction derives from the parties’ 

arbitration agreement, and the agreement circumscribes the jurisdiction. See City of Miami 

v. Ortiz, 317 So. 3d is 249, 252 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 2022) (“An arbitrator's authority to conduct 

an arbitration and the issues to be arbitrated are granted and limited by the operative 

documents in question or by agreement of the parties themselves.”); Szuts v. Dean Witter 

Reynolds, Inc., 931 F.2d 830, 831 (11th Cir. 1991) (“The power and authority of the 

arbitrators in an arbitration proceeding is dependent on the provisions of the arbitration 

agreement under which the arbitrators were appointed.”).

42. Because arbitration provisions are contractual obligations, courts must review these 

provisions and the contracts in general as a matter of contract interpretation. Seaboard 

Coast Line Railroad Company v. The Trailer Train Company, 690 F.2d 1343, 1348 (11th 

Cir. 1982); Regency Group, Inc. v. McDaniels, 647 So. 2d 192, 193 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1994). 

No party may be forced to submit a dispute to arbitration unless the parties agreed and 

intended to arbitrate. See Seaboard C. L. R. Co. v. Trailer Train Co., 690 F. 2d 1343, 1352 

(11th Cir. 1982) (holding that the federal policy favoring arbitration “cannot serve to 

stretch a contract beyond the scope originally intended by the parties”). See also Seifert v. 

United States Home Corp., 750 So. 2d 633, 636 (Fla. 1999).

43. Arbitrators simply have no power to exceed their authority. See Laquer v. Falcone, 165 So. 

3d 19, 22 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 2019) (“One of the grounds upon which a court must vacate an 

arbitration award is when ‘the arbitrators ... in the course of her or his jurisdiction 

exceeded their powers.’”); Fla. Stat. §682.13(1)(d); Szuts v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 

15

THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN JAMES BINHAK, P.L.L.C., 

One Southeast Third Ave., Suite 2600, Miami, FL Tel. (305) 361.5500

Case 9:22-cv-81372-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 15 of 26
931 F.2d 830, 832 (11th Cir. 1991) (“Because the arbitrators violated the provisions of the 

arbitration agreement requiring arbitration before at least three arbitrators, they exceeded 

their authority under the arbitration agreement. So, we vacate the award of the panel... .”)

This Court Should Enforce The Parties’ Agreement 

Regarding Selecting the Arbitrator

44. Given these general principles and the FAA in particular, the Court should enforce the 

Worth Agreement’s provisions regarding the selection and qualifications of the arbitrator.

45. Section 5 of the FAA requires parties to honor their arbitration agreements regarding the 

method for naming and appointing an arbitrator. Moreover, if a party fails to follow the 

agreed method for selecting the arbitrator and the counter party requests, the district court 

must designate an arbitrator in accord with the parties’ agreement. Section 5 says:

If in the agreement provision be made for a method of naming or 

appointing an arbitrator or arbitrators or an umpire, such method shall 

be followed; but if no method be provided therein, or if a method be 

provided and any party thereto shall fail to avail himself of such method, 

or if for any other reason there shall be a lapse in the naming of an arbitrator 

or arbitrators or umpire, or in filling a vacancy, then upon the application of 

either party to the controversy the court shall designate and appoint an 

arbitrator or arbitrators or umpire, as the case may require, who shall 

act under the said agreement with the same force and effect as if he or 

they had been specifically named therein; and unless otherwise provided in 

the agreement the arbitration shall be by a single arbitrator.

9 U.S.C. § 5 (emphasis added).

46. Szuts v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 931 F.2d 830, 832 (11th Cir. 1991), explains this point. 

Paul and Magda Szuts and Dean Witter agreed that three arbitrators would resolve any 

dispute they had. They submitted their dispute to arbitration, but before the case was 

concluded, one of the arbitrators was disqualified and removed. As a result, only two 

16

THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN JAMES BINHAK, P.L.L.C., 

One Southeast Third Ave., Suite 2600, Miami, FL Tel. (305) 361.5500

Case 9:22-cv-81372-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 16 of 26
arbitrators considered all of the evidence and rendered the award. The Eleventh Circuit 

Court of Appeals vacated the award.

47. Judge Edmondson explained “[t]he power and authority of the arbitrators in an arbitration 

proceeding is dependent on the provisions of the arbitration agreement under which the 

arbitrators were appointed.” Consequently, federal courts have the power to vacate 

arbitrators’ awards “where the arbitrators exceed[ ] their powers.” Id. at 831; 9 U.S.C. 

§10(d). The Court held that failing to proceed with three arbitrators violated the arbitration 

agreement, left the arbitrators without jurisdiction, and rendered their award unenforceable. 

Judge Edmondson wrote:

We think the provision of the arbitration agreement that “any arbitration hereunder 

shall be before at least three arbitrators” means what it says: any contract-related 

controversy between Szuts and Dean Witter must be arbitrated by no less than 

three arbitrators. The provision requires that at least three arbitrators participate in 

the arbitration by hearing all the evidence presented by the parties; by hearing the 

arguments presented by the parties; and by participating in the consultation and 

deliberation among the arbitrators on the decision of the controversy. These things 

did not happen here. The going forward of two arbitrators after a third arbitrator 

was removed from the panel thus violated the provision of the arbitration 

agreement that “any arbitration . . . shall be before at least three arbitrators.”

Szuts, 931 F.2d at 831.

48. The Court vacated the award and remanded for a new arbitration before three arbitrators. 

Id. at 832 (“Because the arbitrators violated the provisions of the arbitration agreement 

requiring arbitration before at least three arbitrators, they exceeded their authority under 

the arbitration agreement. So, we vacate the award of the panel, and remand for new 

arbitration proceedings before a panel of three new arbitrators.”) (internal citations 

omitted).

17

THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN JAMES BINHAK, P.L.L.C., 

One Southeast Third Ave., Suite 2600, Miami, FL Tel. (305) 361.5500

Case 9:22-cv-81372-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 17 of 26
49. The same rule applies to this case. When Ms. Morales and Worth Group agreed to have a 

retired Florida federal or state judge resolve their dispute, they meant what they said. 

Consequently, the arbitrator does not have the qualifications set forth in the parties’ 

agreement; the arbitrator does not have jurisdiction to proceed; and if he does proceed, any 

award will be unenforceable. 

50. In this regard, Ms. Morales’ failure to file her case in Palm Beach County, Florida created 

another problem. With a newly filed case, JAMS would have conducted the JAMS 

arbitrator selection process under JAMS Rule 15. The parties would have received a list of 

retired Florida federal and state judges, and Worth Group and Mr. Wilshire would have 

been able to exercise strikes against the proposed arbitrators. 

51. Unless this Court intervenes, Worth Group and Mr. Wilshire will also be required to accept 

an arbitrator without proceeding through the JAMS arbitrator selection process (although 

Ms. Morales had the opportunity to participate in the arbitrator selection process). This 

situation violates the parties’ agreement which requires that “The selection and replacement 

of an arbitrator or arbitrators shall be in accordance with the JAMS Rules... .” See Cargill 

Rice, Inc. v. Empresa Nicaraguense Dealimentos Basicos, 25 F.3d 223 (4th Cir. 1994) 

(vacating an arbitration award when the arbitrators were not selected through the terms in 

the arbitration agreement); Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc. v. Garage Emps. Union, Loc. 272, 

791 F.2d 22, 25 (2d Cir. 1986); (“An arbitrator may have the final say on certain issues that 

affect the power to enter an award, but an award will not be enforced if the arbitrator is not 

chosen in accordance with the method agreed to by the parties.”).

18

THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN JAMES BINHAK, P.L.L.C., 

One Southeast Third Ave., Suite 2600, Miami, FL Tel. (305) 361.5500

Case 9:22-cv-81372-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 18 of 26
52. Because Ms. Morales refused and continues to refuse to proceed with an appropriate 

arbitrator selected in accord with the Worth Agreement, the Court should either order Ms. 

Morales to submit her claim to JAMS in Palm Beach County, Florida, or select a retired 

Florida federal or state court judge to conduct the arbitration in accord with the JAMS 

Rules. In the meantime, the Court should stay the arbitration proceedings in Los Angeles.

This Court Should Enforce The Parties’ Agreement 

Regarding Venue

53. In addition to breaching the agreement by seeking to arbitrate before an inappropriate 

arbitrator, Ms. Morales breached the arbitration agreement by arbitrating in the wrong 

venue.

54. Sterling Financial Investment Group, Inc. v. Hammer, 393 F. 3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2004), 

demonstrates how the Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcement of the Worth Group 

Agreement arbitration clause.

55. Bernard Hammer left his job in Texas to work for Sterling Financial in Florida. Hammer 

and Sterling Financial signed an employment agreement and a representative agreement 

which required them to arbitrate in Florida any disputes under the agreements. The 

employment contract said: “The parties agree that any claim or controversy concerning the 

terms, conditions or application of this Agreement shall be subject to arbitration pursuant to 

the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. in Boca Raton, Florida.” The 

representative agreement said: “Any disputes between the parties hereto shall be submitted 

to binding arbitration before the National Association of Securities Dealers with venue 

being in the State of Florida.” See id. at 1224.

19

THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN JAMES BINHAK, P.L.L.C., 

One Southeast Third Ave., Suite 2600, Miami, FL Tel. (305) 361.5500

Case 9:22-cv-81372-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 19 of 26
56. Hammer’s and Sterling Financial’s relationship quickly deteriorated, and Hammer quit his 

job. He moved to Texas and initiated an arbitration before the National Association of 

Securities Dealers in Texas. In response, Sterling Financial asked the National Association 

of Securities Dealers to move the panel to Florida to comply with the arbitration 

agreements, but the National Association of Securities Dealers denied the request and 

assigned the case to a Texas panel.

57. Sterling Financial sued in federal court in Florida to stay the Texas arbitration and compel 

arbitration in Florida. Based on the arbitration agreement’s venue provisions, the district 

court entered the stay and compelled arbitration in Florida. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. 

58. Judge Cox began by noting that section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires parties to 

honor the terms of their arbitration agreements, and grants the federal courts the power to 

enforce these terms by staying inappropriate arbitrations. Section 4 says:

A party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of another to 

arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration may petition any United 

States district court . . . for an order directing that such arbitration proceed in 

the manner provided for in such agreement. .... The court shall hear the 

parties, and upon being satisfied that the making of the agreement for 

arbitration or the failure to comply therewith is not in issue, the court shall 

make an order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance 

with the terms of the agreement. The hearing and proceedings, under such 

agreement, shall be within the district in which the petition for an order 

directing such arbitration is filed.

59. Given this rule, Judge Cox explained: “The district court properly exercised its jurisdiction 

pursuant to section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act in staying arbitration in Houston, Texas 

and compelling arbitration in Boca Raton, Florida.” Id. at 1226.

20

THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN JAMES BINHAK, P.L.L.C., 

One Southeast Third Ave., Suite 2600, Miami, FL Tel. (305) 361.5500

Case 9:22-cv-81372-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 20 of 26
60. A subsequent case, Bamberger Rosenheim, Ltd. v. OA Development Inc. (United States), 

862 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 2017), further illustrates how the arbitrator in this case 

disregarded the Worth Agreement’s venue clause. In Bamberger, the venue provision 

allowed for arbitration in Atlanta or Tel Aviv depending upon the circumstances. The 

arbitrator chose Atlanta, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Critically, the Court explained 

the Bamberger arbitrator considered the relevant venue provision, and therefore the 

arbitrator’s decision would stand. 

61. By contrast, Bamberger explains how the Sterling arbitrator failed to interpret the 

arbitration agreement. Specifically, the Sterling arbitrator reviewed a clause that only 

provided for venue in Florida, but the Sterling arbitrator still allowed arbitration to proceed 

in Texas. As a result, the Court held the Sterling arbitrator could not have interpreted the 

contract because the Sterling arbitrator clearly disregarded an unambiguous venue 

provision: Judge Melloy wrote:

In [Sterling], we simply held “that a federal district court ... has jurisdiction

to enforce a forum selection clause in a valid arbitration agreement that has 

been disregarded by the arbitrators.” Indeed, by allowing arbitration to 

proceed in Texas, the arbitrator in Sterling Financial clearly disregarded an 

unambiguous venue provision that only provided for arbitration in Florida. 

We did not hold that courts should review arbitral-venue provisions de novo; 

in Sterling Financial, it could not be said that the arbitrator even arguably 

interpreted the parties’ contract.

Id. at 1288-89.

62. By disregarding the parties’ unambiguous venue provision, the arbitrator in this case has 

directly violated Sterling and Bamberger. 

21

THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN JAMES BINHAK, P.L.L.C., 

One Southeast Third Ave., Suite 2600, Miami, FL Tel. (305) 361.5500

Case 9:22-cv-81372-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 21 of 26
63. Ms. Morales and Worth Group agreed to arbitrate in one venue only: Palm Beach County, 

Florida. Consequently, when the arbitrator ordered the arbitration to occur in California, he 

ignored and failed to interpret: (a) the entire Worth Agreement (by applying the FNB 

Agreement to Worth Group), (b) specific provisions of the Worth Agreement (e.g., the 

requirement to submit the arbitration and conduct the arbitration in Palm Beach County, 

Florida, the requirement that the arbitrator be a retired Florida federal or state court judge, 

and the requirement that the Worth Agreement would prevail whenever it conflicted with 

the JAMS rules), and (c) the JAMS rules (which specifically indicate that the parties 

agreement and the applicable law will control if there is a conflict). 

64. In instances like this, district courts have jurisdiction to enforce a forum selection clause in 

a valid arbitration agreement that has been disregarded by [an arbitrator].” See Sterling 

Financial Investment Group, Inc. v. Hammer, 393 F. 3d 1223, 1225 (11th Cir. 2004); 

Bamberger Rosenheim, Ltd. v. OA Development Inc. (United States), 862 F.3d 1284 (11th 

Cir. 2017).

65. For these reasons, the Court should either order Ms. Morales to submit her claim to JAMS 

in Palm Beach County, Florida, or select a retired Florida federal or state court judge to 

conduct the arbitration in accord with the JAMS rules. Either way, the Court should stay 

the arbitration proceedings in Los Angeles.

The JAMS Rules Cannot Change The Parties’ Agreement

66. Given the parties’ contract and the applicable law, it is also clear the arbitrator ignored and 

disregarded the Worth Agreement when ruling that the JAMS rules allow consolidation of 

22

THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN JAMES BINHAK, P.L.L.C., 

One Southeast Third Ave., Suite 2600, Miami, FL Tel. (305) 361.5500

Case 9:22-cv-81372-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 22 of 26
the claims, and that the consolidation caused Worth Group to waive the arbitrator 

qualification and venue provisions of the Worth Agreement.

67. As the U.S. Supreme Court has explained, arbitration is “a creature of contract,” and the 

parties’ agreement sets the rules. See ATT Technologies v. Communications Workers of 

America, 475 U.S. 643 (1986). The Florida Supreme Court has similarly held: “because 

arbitration provisions are contractual in nature, construction of such provisions and the 

contracts in which they appear remains a matter of contract interpretation.” See Seifert v. 

United States Home Corp., 750 So. 2d 633, 636 (Fla. 1999). Moreover Florida law favors 

arbitration and requires enforcement of an arbitration agreement’s terms. See Healthcomp 

Evaluation Services Corp. v. O’Donnell, 817 So. 2d 1095, 1097 (Fla. 2nd D.C.A. 2002) 

(“Agreements to arbitrate are a favored means of dispute resolution. When there is an 

enforceable arbitration agreement, the court should require the terms to be followed.”)

68. The Worth Agreement says: “Except as otherwise provided herein, the arbitration shall be 

conducted in accordance with the provisions of JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rules 

and Procedures in effect at the time of the Borrower’s execution of this Agreement.” 

Exhibit 2, pg. 6, ¶ 35(d).

69. The Worth Agreement further contains a specific provision which overrides the JAMS 

rules regarding the arbitrator’s qualifications. Ms. Morales agreed: “The selection and 

replacement of an arbitrator or arbitrators shall be in accordance with the JAMS rules, 

except that: (i) each arbitrator shall be a retired judge of either the Florida Circuit Court or 

a United States District Court located in Florida.” Exhibit 2, pg. 6, ¶ 35(e). 

23

THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN JAMES BINHAK, P.L.L.C., 

One Southeast Third Ave., Suite 2600, Miami, FL Tel. (305) 361.5500

Case 9:22-cv-81372-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 23 of 26
70. The arbitrator entirely ignored and failed to interpret these provisions of the Worth 

Agreement when applying the JAMS rules. 

71. The arbitrator ignored the JAMS rules too.

72. While the JAMS rules allow for consolidation and for the arbitrator to set venue after 

consolidation, the rules specifically prohibit the arbitrator from contradicting the parties’ 

arbitration agreement or the law.

73. First, JAMS Rule 2 allows parties to make agreements regarding how to conduct their 

arbitration, and Rule 2 requires that any procedures the parties set “shall be enforceable as 

if contained in these rules.”

74. Second, even the consolidation rules are subject to the parties’ arbitration agreement and 

the applicable laws. See JAMS Rule 6 (“Unless the Parties’ Agreement or applicable law 

provides otherwise, JAMS, if it determines that the Arbitrations so filed have common 

issues of fact or law, may consolidate Arbitrations in the following instances.”) (emphasis 

added); JAMS Rule 4 (“If any of these Rules, or modification of these Rules agreed to by 

the Parties, is determined to be in conflict with a provision of applicable law, the provision 

of law will govern over the Rule in conflict, and no other Rule will be affected.”).

75. Szuts v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 931 F.2d 830 (11th Cir. 1991), explains that an 

arbitrator may not elevate a set of arbitration rules over the parties’ arbitration agreement.

76. In Szuts, the American Arbitration Association rules allowed an arbitration to proceed with 

fewer than three arbitrators, but the parties agreement required three arbitrators. The Court 

held this AAA rule could not override the parties’ agreement requiring three arbitrators and 

vacated the award. Id. at 832 (“In this case, Dean Witter and Szuts adopted an arbitration 

24

THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN JAMES BINHAK, P.L.L.C., 

One Southeast Third Ave., Suite 2600, Miami, FL Tel. (305) 361.5500

Case 9:22-cv-81372-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 24 of 26
agreement that, while incorporating by reference the AAA Rules, also required arbitration 

before a panel of at least three arbitrators. We, thus, conclude that ‘the parties agree[d] 

otherwise,’ thus prohibiting the application of the going-forward provision of Rule 20.”).

77. Given Szuts, the arbitrator clearly ignored and failed to interpret the Worth Agreement and 

violated the FAA when he elevated the JAMS rules over the Worth Agreement. 

78. In short, the parties agreed to arbitrate, to file, and to conduct any arbitration in Palm 

Beach County, Florida before a retired Florida federal or state court judge. Consolidating 

this case into the FNB case will violate all of these terms. Even if the JAMS rules allowed 

consolidation under these circumstances (and they do not), the JAMS rules cannot override 

the parties’ agreement.

79. For these reasons, the Court should either order Ms. Morales to submit her claim to JAMS 

in Palm Beach County, Florida, or select a retired Florida federal or state court judge to 

conduct the arbitration in accord with the JAMS rules. Either way, the Court should stay 

the arbitration proceedings in Los Angeles.

Conclusion

80. Ms. Morales breached her arbitration agreement by: (a) failing to submit her claims to 

JAMS in Palm Beach County, Florida; (b) insisting on proceeding with an arbitrator who is 

not a retired Florida federal or state court judge; and (c) insisting on arbitrating in 

California. The arbitrator has allowed this breach by ignoring and failing to interpret the 

parties’ arbitration agreement.

81. For all of the reasons above, the Court should enter an order enjoining the arbitration in 

Los Angeles, and (a) compelling Ms. Morales to submit her claim to JAMS in Palm Beach 

25

THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN JAMES BINHAK, P.L.L.C., 

One Southeast Third Ave., Suite 2600, Miami, FL Tel. (305) 361.5500

Case 9:22-cv-81372-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 25 of 26
County, Florida; or (b) appointing a retired judge of either the Florida Circuit Court or a 

United States District Court located in Florida to resolve this dispute under the JAMS rules 

as modified by the Parties’ Agreement. In the meantime, the Court should stay the 

arbitration proceedings in California.

Dated: September 6, 2022

Respectfully submitted,

THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN JAMES 

BINHAK, P.L.L.C.

Counsel for Worth Group, Inc. and Andrew 

Wilshire

One Southeast Third Ave., Suite 2600

Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone: (305) 361-5500

By: /s/ Stephen James Binhak

Stephen James Binhak, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 0736491

binhaks@binhaklaw.com

26

THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN JAMES BINHAK, P.L.L.C., 

One Southeast Third Ave., Suite 2600, Miami, FL Tel. (305) 361.5500

Case 9:22-cv-81372-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 26 of 26