throughout the objection of defendants’ counsel, Judge Lyons allowed both relative edges to submit a page brief as towards the kind of purchase.
Defendants’ movement for the stay associated with action, to compel arbitration, as well as for an order that is protective along with plaintiff’s cross-motion for an order striking defendants’ objections to discovery, had been argued before Judge Lyons on August 6, 2004. The movement judge identified the contract between plaintiff and defendants as being a agreement of adhesion and noted that the difficulties presented were whether “the conditions in the contract are so that these are typically become enforced from the procedural problem of arbitration . after reviewing New Jersey situation law and decreasing to address the underlying dispute that plaintiff had with defendants regarding the legality of pay day loans . .” and whether or not the arbitration plan as “substantively put forth is such as for example become unconscionable.” Judge Lyons decided these presssing problems and only defendants.
Counsel for plaintiff asked for a way to submit a kind of purchase, which may dismiss the full instance without prejudice “to ensure that plaintiff may take it up as a matter of right . . . towards the Appellate Division.”
By letter brief dated August 9, 2004, counsel for plaintiff asked Judge Lyons “to dismiss the instance without prejudice instead of to stay the situation indefinitely pending the end result of arbitration proceedings.” A proposed as a type of order had been submitted aided by the letter brief.