ADDITIONAL CASES Bruderman Brothers, LLC, and Bruderman Asset Management, LLC, Plaintiffs v. Gary M. Goldberg, Defendant; 656979/2019 DECISION & ORDER Motions in the above-captioned related actions are consolidated for disposition. In the first above-captioned action (“Action No. 1″) the defendants therein (the “Bruderman Parties”) move for a protective order in respect of certain discovery sought by plaintiff therein (motion seq. no. 005), and to compel arbitration on the grounds that that action seeks to litigate an arbitrable dispute pursuant to agreements entered into by the parties (motion seq. no. 007), and, to varying extents, for dismissal of the second verified amended complaint on grounds independent of arbitrability (motion seq. no. 008). In the second above-captioned action (“Action No. 2″), plaintiffs therein (the “Bruderman Companies”) move for a preliminary injunction (motion seq. no. 002) and for certain discovery (motion seq. no. 003). The defendant therein cross-moves (motion seq. no. 001) to dismiss the complaint. Action No. 1 The second amended verified complaint in Action No. 1, dated November 12, 2019, alleges as follows: The plaintiff, Gary M. Goldberg, ran a financial planning business generally known as Gary Goldberg Financial Services. On September 24, 2014, Mr. Goldberg entered into agreements whereby he sold his said business to the Bruderman Companies. Those agreements consist of an Asset Purchase Agreement between Gary Goldberg & Co., Inc., and Bruderman Brothers, Inc.; and an Asset Purchase Agreement between Gary Goldberg Planning Services, Inc., and Bruderman Asset Management, LLC (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 22, 23) (the “Asset Purchase Agreements”). Relatedly, the parties entered into an Employment Agreement on January 2, 2015 (the “Employment Agreement”), whereby Mr. Goldberg would work for the Bruderman Companies for a five-year period (NYSCEF Doc. No. 69). As a result of this transaction, Gary Goldberg Financial Services would function as an autonomous division of the Bruderman Companies, run by Mr. Goldberg. Allegations describing the actual gravamen of the action can first be found at paragraphs 16 and 17 of the complaint, which allege the following: Goldberg’s success commanded such power within the Bruderman Companies that, pursuant to the Employment Agreement, the Bruderman Companies were required to pay Goldberg extraordinary sums of money. Believing that a financial advisor that was younger than Goldberg’s seventy-nine (79) years of age, who would require less financial compensation, could operate Gary Goldberg Financial Services, Defendants took steps to make Goldberg’s work environment unsustainable. In this regard, and in an effort to force Goldberg out of the Bruderman Companies, Defendants sought to hire a younger, cheaper replacements [sic] for Goldberg. (Second Amended Verified Complaint
16-17.) “Among other actions taken” by the Bruderman Parties “to interfere with Goldberg’s employment” are alleged withholding of compensation, denial of access to a business e-mail account, and disparaging statements to Goldberg’s clients and to “governing authorities” (id., 18). Other adverse employment actions are alleged, including termination of the employment and the filing with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA)1 of a false Form U5 containing allegedly false disparaging information concerning Mr. Goldberg (see, id.,
