A New Jersey court has ruled against a motion to compel arbitration in a business dispute involving Maple Holistics, LLC, and its former manager, Mordechai Eisenbach. This decision affects the ongoing legal battle between the parties and highlights the importance of clear agreements in business relationships.

The New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division issued its ruling on October 23, 2026, affirming a lower court's decision that denied the defendants' request to dismiss the case and compel arbitration. The case, filed under docket number A-2148-25, revolves around ownership disputes and alleged misappropriation of funds within Maple Holistics.

Background

Maple Holistics, LLC was established in 2012 by Binyomin Rutstein and Mordechai Eisenbach. In 2014, they appointed BNR Consulting LLC as the manager of the company. Over time, Eisenbach and Rutstein restructured their ownership interests through two entities, EF Group Holdings LLC and NS Group Holdings LLC. The dispute arose when Yisroel Borenstein was appointed as the manager of Maple Holistics in 2015, and ownership claims became contentious.

In April 2025, Borenstein and Rutstein filed a complaint alleging that Eisenbach had taken control of all business accounts for Maple Holistics, leading to lost sales and damage to the company's reputation. The plaintiffs claimed that Eisenbach's actions resulted in the misappropriation of company funds. Following a series of legal maneuvers, including attempts to seek temporary injunctive relief, the case progressed to the appellate division after the lower court denied the defendants' motion to compel arbitration.

The Ruling

The appellate court ruled that there was no enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties. The court stated, "there [was] no evidence that both parties explicitly waived their right to proceed before this [c]ourt and because there was no acknowledgment of a formal signed agreement with clear and unambiguous terms." This ruling confirmed the lower court's decision to deny the motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint.

The court emphasized the importance of mutual assent in arbitration agreements, noting that the communication between the parties did not demonstrate a clear agreement to arbitrate. The court also pointed out that the absence of a signed arbitration agreement meant that the plaintiffs had not waived their right to a jury trial or to have a judge preside over the proceedings.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for business disputes in New Jersey. It reinforces the necessity for clear and formal agreements when parties seek to resolve disputes through arbitration. Without a written and signed arbitration agreement, parties may find it challenging to enforce such agreements in court.

The decision also highlights the court's commitment to protecting the rights of parties in business relationships, ensuring that all parties are fully aware of their rights and obligations before waiving their right to a judicial forum. This case may serve as a precedent for future disputes involving arbitration agreements, particularly in cases where the parties have not clearly defined their intentions.

What's Next

Following this ruling, the defendants may consider their options for further legal action, including the possibility of appealing the decision to a higher court. However, as of now, there are no indications of a related case pending in the appellate division.