on the objection of defendants’ counsel, Judge Lyons allowed both edges to submit a page brief as to your as a type of order.
Defendants’ movement for the stay regarding the action, to compel arbitration, as well as for a protective purchase, in addition to plaintiff’s cross-motion for the order striking defendants’ objections to discovery, had been argued before Judge Lyons on August 6, 2004. After reviewing nj-new jersey instance law and decreasing to address the underlying dispute that plaintiff had with defendants regarding the legality of payday advances, the movement judge identified the contract between plaintiff and defendants being a agreement of adhesion and noted that the difficulties presented were whether “the provisions in the contract are so that these are typically become enforced regarding the procedural dilemma of arbitration . . .” and whether or not the arbitration plan as ” put forth is substantively such as for example become unconscionable.” Judge Lyons decided these presssing dilemmas and only defendants.