UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

INTL FCSTONE FINANCIAL, INC,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAUL K. YOON, an individual,

Defendant.

 

 Case No. 20-cv-03764

INTL’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION 

Plaintiff INTL FCStone Financial, Inc. (“INTL”), by and through its undersigned attorneys, for its 

Opposition to Defendant Paul K. Yoon’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, states as follows:

Defendant Yoon’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (“Motion to Compel”) should be denied, 

or in the alternative, stayed until such time as Yoon has elected (or not elected) to arbitrate his 

claims with INTL.

A. INTL is Entitled to Bring Claims in Court

The customer application Yoon signed with INTL in order to obtain his trading account 

(the “Application”) expressly contemplates that the parties might file claims in court, and INTL 

has availed itself of that right. (See Exhibit A to Complaint, Doc. #1-1 at 23, ¶ 28) (“Customer 

agrees controversy between FCM and Customer arising out of this Agreement, regardless of the 

manner of resolution, shall be arbitrated or litigated in a court of law or otherwise resolved by a 

tribunal located in Chicago.”) (decapitalized for readability). Here, INTL has chosen the forum of 

the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Case: 1:20-cv-03764 Document #: 17 Filed: 10/02/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:84
— 2 —

INTL OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

B. Yoon Has Not Demanded Arbitration or Chosen an Arbitral Forum

As of today, Yoon has not issued INTL an arbitration demand, nor has it initiated an 

arbitration proceeding, which precludes the Court from granting his Motion to Compel. In order 

to obtain an order compelling arbitration, a party must show “a written agreement to arbitrate, a 

dispute within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and a refusal to arbitrate.” Marzano v. 

Proficio Mortg. Ventures, LLC, 942 F. Supp. 2d 781, 798 (N.D. Ill. 2013). The element of “refusal 

to arbitrate” cannot be shown without written notice of a demand to arbitrate. In Manzano, the 

plaintiffs filed a collective and class action against the defendants alleging, inter alia, violations 

of the FLSA. Id. at 785. The defendants moved in the alternative for dismissal or an order 

compelling arbitration. The court found that it could not compel arbitration because there could be 

no refusal to arbitrate without an initial demand. Id at 798–99. Thus, “[j]udicial involvement prior 

to this sequence is premature. . . .” Id. at 799. Similarly, here, because Yoon has not made a 

demand for arbitration, the Court cannot compel same.

Further, Yoon’s request to compel arbitration is not ripe because he has not yet determined

which arbitral forum would hear the dispute. Upon receipt of Yoon’s Motion to Compel, pursuant 

to CFTC regulations, INTL provided Yoon’s counsel with a list of possible arbitral fora from 

which Yoon may choose. (See Exhibit 1, Letter of September 14, 2020). These arbitral fora include 

the National Futures Association, the CME Group, and the American Arbitration Association. Id. 

Pursuant to 17 C.F.R. § 166.5(c)(5), Yoon must respond to INTL within forty-five days of INTL’s 

letter, in this case, October 29, 2020. See 17 C.F.R. § 166.5(c)(5). Because Yoon has not yet made 

a selection of an arbitral forum, there presently no venue in which the parties may be compelled 

to arbitrate INTL’s claim, and thus there is no relief available to Yoon.

Case: 1:20-cv-03764 Document #: 17 Filed: 10/02/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:85
— 3 —

INTL OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

C. Conclusion

INTL properly elected to file its claims before this Court. Because Yoon has not yet 

demanded arbitration (and in particular has not yet selected a forum in which to arbitrate), Yoon 

has not shown that INTL has refused to arbitrate, and cannot successfully compel arbitration. For 

those reasons, Yoon’s Motion to Compel should be denied. In the alternative, Yoon’s motion 

should be stayed until Yoon selects an arbitral forum. In the event Yoon fails to designate an 

alternative forum, the procedural issue (lack of ripeness) Yoon has created will become permanent 

and INTL should be permitted to litigate its claims before this Court.

Dated: October 2, 2020 Respectfully Submitted,

MICHELMAN & ROBINSON, LLP

/s/Seth E. Darmstadter_________________

Seth E. Darmstadter (ARDC #6284759)

Matthew R. Lasky (ARDC #6318140)

sdarmstadter@mrllp.com

mlasky@mrllp.com

200 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2900

Chicago, IL 60606-5896

Tel: (312) 638-5671

Fax: (312) 638-5672

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case: 1:20-cv-03764 Document #: 17 Filed: 10/02/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:86