Source: https://www.mintz.com/our-people/todd-rosenbaum
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 14:20:32+00:00

Document:
Todd maintains a diverse litigation practice, encompassing a wide range of general commercial litigation, securities litigation, white collar criminal defense, and government enforcement matters, as well as internal investigations. He has been an integral member of teams representing clients at the trial and appellate court levels, as well as in domestic arbitration.
Todd has a strong commitment to the firm’s pro bono effort, and represents clients in a variety of immigration and other matters in addition to serving on the firm’s Pro Bono Committee. Todd is also a member of the firm's Sports & Entertainment, E-Discovery, and Alternative Dispute Resolution practice groups.
Todd recently completed an external rotation with the New York City Law Department Corporation Counsel, where he represented the City in several lawsuits involving tort claims.
Prior to joining the firm, Todd was a legal fellow at the Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law and Advocacy. There, he co-authored an article about reforms to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act and drafted amicus curiae briefs on behalf of the National Vaccine Information Center. Todd also was a health policy intern at Make the Road New York and focused on issues regarding language access laws and regulations in the city and state. Todd was a Summer Associate at Mintz in 2010.
During law school, Todd was a notes editor for the Journal of Legislation and Public Policy and chair of the Health Law Society. Prior to law school, he was a Teach For America corps member and taught upper elementary school in East Harlem.
Represented professional basketball franchise in intra-league dispute, securing favorable settlement outcome.
Successfully appealed decision dismissing investment funds’ action for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty against former counsel.
Conducted Audit Committee investigation into improper revenue recognition activities at public life sciences company.
Conducted internal investigation into payroll fraud, accounting fraud, and FCPA violations at public company with retail operations throughout Central America and the Caribbean.
Represents the world’s largest stock transfer company in securities and contract litigations.
Represents diverse financial companies in litigation proceedings concerning losses related to a Eurobond default.
Successfully defended companies in numerous industries against putative class actions alleging website inaccessibility and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Secured asylum victory in Immigration Court appeal for client whose affirmative asylum application was denied because he had missed the one-year filing deadline.
Successfully petitioned for teenage client, who was in removal proceedings, to receive Special Immigrant Juvenile Status and obtain Lawful Permanent Residence.
Represented leading environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club, in constitutional litigation brought against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and other state agencies to prevent exploratory drilling in New York’s Adirondack Forest Preserve.
Does the Physical or Mental Impairment of a Party Make An Arbitration Agreement Voidable?
For an arbitration agreement to be enforceable, the parties must have a reasonable opportunity to understand its terms. See Fagerstrom v. Amazon.com, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1070 (S.D. Cal. 2015). With this principle in mind, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit commented in 2006, regarding the enforceability of an arbitration clause that was prominent in a contract, “You’d have to be blind to miss this warning. There was no surprise here.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1309-10 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (emphasis added). But what if the plaintiff in Nagrampa had been blind, or was otherwise unable reasonably to read, or to understand, or to appreciate the significance of the arbitration clause by virtue of a disability or a more temporary impairment?
In a previous post, we addressed what may happen when a defendant in federal litigation seeks to compel arbitration under Ch. 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 4, but the applicable arbitration agreement specifies a place of arbitration that is outside the geographic jurisdiction of the federal court. (See https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2017-07-spectre-haunts-motions-compel-arbitration-venue.) But what approaches are available to a defendant when a plaintiff files suit in a state court, the claim is subject to an arbitration agreement, and the agreed place of arbitration is in a different state?
When an agreement to arbitrate contains a clear and unmistakable “delegation” provision, gateway questions of arbitrability are for the arbitrator to decide. See, e.g., Kubala v. Supreme Prod. Servs., 830 F.3d 199, 201-02 (5th Cir. 2016), citing First Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 942 (1995); Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (2010).
As discussed in an earlier post, obtaining discovery from a non-party to an arbitration often is easier said than done. Depending on the law of the place of arbitration, arbitrators may not be able to compel document production or testimony from a non-party before a hearing on the merits.
Litigators in the U.S. often take for granted the ease with which they can obtain discovery from non-parties in our federal and state courts. One might assume that the “presumption in favor of arbitrability” embodied in the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. (“FAA”), would have been implemented with, among other things, a statutory grant of subpoena power to arbitrators that is virtually coextensive with that of a federal district court.
When a claimant who is party to an arbitration agreement initiates litigation of arbitrable claims, the defendant in that case typically expects to be able to move successfully to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 4.
In most countries, it is uncontroversial that a court sitting at the situs of an arbitration has jurisdiction to adjudicate a petition to confirm or vacate or modify an award issued in that arbitration. In the United States federal courts, however, the mix of issues concerning subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, respectively, has made for bewilderment galore.
Last month, we described the split among Federal Circuit Courts regarding the question of whether the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 3, mandates a stay rather than dismissal of a judicial proceeding after a district court compels arbitration of all of the claims in an action before it.
Under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., if a District Court compels arbitration of all of the claims that are before it, and thereupon dismisses the suit, its order compelling arbitration is final and appealable; but if the District Court stays the suit, its order compelling arbitration is “non-final” and not immediately appealable.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 4
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 4
 § 3