The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 48 were read on this motion to/for COMPEL ARBITRATION. DECISION ORDER ON MOTION Upon the foregoing documents, and upon due deliberation, defendants’ motion by order to show cause filed April 15, 2019 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 14), pursuant to CPLR 7503, to compel arbitration and to stay this action is granted as set forth in the following memorandum, and in the manner stated therein. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs commenced this action by summons with notice “for fraud, fraud in the inducement, and conversion of client funds” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1). The allegations underlying the action are further fleshed out in plaintiffs’ affidavit submitted in opposition to the instant motion (NYSCEF Do. No. 27), as follows. Individual plaintiffs (the “Plaintiffs”) are partners in the law firm of Steamer Hart LLP, also a plaintiff in this action. Plaintiffs’ affidavit attests that Plaintiffs negotiated with defendants to join the defendants as law partners, culminating in their execution of August 2018 “Joinder” documents (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 5 and 6) pursuant to a July 2018 Third Amended and Restated Partnership Agreement (the “Partnership Agreement”) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 4). The Joinder documents reference an Addendum which sets forth provisions related to equity draws, year-end distributions, performance bonuses, and other incidents of a new partnership which would be comprised of all the individual parties hereto, to be known as CKR Law. Plaintiffs seem to be saying that although they definitely did execute Joinder documents, and definitely did assent to the terms of the Partnership Agreement, defendants “surreptitiously and fraudulently attached the parties’ signature pages to an earlier draft of the Joinder…to which [they] never agreed and in fact flatly rejected” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 10). They say that that earlier draft “made no provision for [their] compensation and did not…reference the…Addendum” (id.). The action seeks “a declaration that [Plaintiffs] are not and never were law partners with the defendants” and further seeks monetary relief representing fees paid to CKR Law by Plaintiffs’ clients; costs involved in Plaintiffs’ move into (and later, out of) the offices of CKR Law; and sums expended by Plaintiffs for which defendant Michael James Rinde promised to reimburse them for (NYSCEF Doc. No. 27 4). Prior to the filing of any complaint, or any demand for complaint, defendants filed the instant motion seeking to stay this action and compel arbitration based on broad, clear, and unambiguous arbitration provisions contained in the Partnership Agreement and in the Joinder documents.1 In fact, it is undisputed that Plaintiffs actually did commence a JAMS mediation proceeding in October 2018 — an express prerequisite to arbitration found in the arbitration clause of the Partnership Agreement — albeit with their stated proviso that, according to them, they “were not party or subject to any written partnership agreement with the defendants” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 27 13). They state that their decision to commence mediation was, simply, an “expedient” means of trying to resolve their dispute (id., 12). Moreover, Plaintiffs assert that they commenced this action because defendants failed to mediate in good faith (id.,
