Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

Annalycia Jenkins, a former employee of Dermatology Management, LLC, filed a class action lawsuit against her employer after resigning. She alleged unfair competition, and the employer sought to compel arbitration based on an agreement Jenkins signed on her first day of work. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration, finding the agreement both procedurally and substantively unconscionable.The San Luis Obispo County Superior Court found the arbitration agreement substantively unconscionable due to its lack of mutuality, shortened statute of limitations, unreasonable discovery restrictions, and requirement for the parties to equally share the arbitrator’s fees and costs. Procedurally, the court noted the agreement was a contract of adhesion, pre-signed by the employer months before Jenkins was hired, and presented to her on a take-it-or-leave-it basis without the presence of the Chief People Officer.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The appellate court agreed that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable due to the inequality of bargaining power and the pre-signed nature of the agreement. It also upheld the finding of substantive unconscionability, noting the lack of mutuality, the unreasonable one-year statute of limitations, the unfair cost-sharing provision, and the restrictive discovery terms. The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sever the unconscionable provisions, as doing so would condone an illegal scheme and incentivize employers to draft one-sided agreements. The order denying the motion to compel arbitration was affirmed. View "Jenkins v. Dermatology Management, LLC" on Justia Law

Ariel Torres, a former Starbucks employee, and Raphyr Lubin, the husband of another former Starbucks employee, filed a putative class action against Starbucks. They alleged that Starbucks sent them deficient health-insurance notices under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). Starbucks moved to compel arbitration based on employment agreements signed by Torres and Lubin’s wife. Torres agreed to arbitration, but Lubin opposed it, arguing he was not a party to his wife’s employment agreement.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied Starbucks’s motion to compel arbitration for Lubin. The court found that Lubin was not a party to his wife’s employment agreement and was not suing to enforce it. Instead, Lubin sought to enforce his own statutory right to an adequate COBRA notice. The court held that no equitable doctrine of Florida contract law required Lubin to arbitrate and that Starbucks waived its argument that Lubin’s rights were derivative of his wife’s rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Lubin, not being a party to the arbitration agreement, could not be compelled to arbitrate. The court also found that the arbitration agreement’s delegation clause did not apply to Lubin, as he was not a party to the agreement. Additionally, the court rejected Starbucks’s arguments based on equitable estoppel, third-party beneficiary doctrine, and the derivative claim theory, concluding that none of these principles required Lubin to arbitrate his claim. The court affirmed the district court’s order denying Starbucks’s motion to compel arbitration. View "Lubin v. Starbucks Corporation" on Justia Law

A customer, Davie Montes, purchased a used car from National Buick GMC (National) and signed two agreements: a Purchase Agreement and an Arbitration Agreement. The Purchase Agreement included an integration clause stating it was the complete and exclusive statement of terms. The Arbitration Agreement, which did not have an integration clause, covered disputes related to the purchase or financing of the vehicle. After experiencing issues with the car, Montes sued National, which then moved to compel arbitration based on the Arbitration Agreement.The Fourth District Court in Provo denied National's motion, ruling that the Purchase Agreement's integration clause made it the sole agreement between the parties. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, interpreting Utah precedent to mean that the integration clause precluded consideration of the Arbitration Agreement.The Supreme Court of the State of Utah reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts' decisions. The Supreme Court held that contemporaneous, executed agreements related to the same transaction should be construed together, even if one contains an integration clause. The court found that the Purchase Agreement and the Arbitration Agreement were part of the same transaction and should be considered together. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Montes v. National Buick GMC" on Justia Law

Stephnie Trujillo filed a complaint against her former employer, J-M Manufacturing Company (JMM), and four former coworkers, alleging unlawful sexual/gender discrimination, harassment, failure to prevent such actions, retaliation, and seeking injunctive relief. The parties negotiated and entered into a post-dispute stipulation for arbitration, which was approved by the trial court. Arbitration commenced, and JMM paid the arbitrator’s invoices for over a year. However, JMM failed to pay an invoice by the due date of September 12, 2022, but paid it immediately upon being reminded on October 18, 2022. Trujillo then sought to withdraw from arbitration under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98, which the trial court granted.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Trujillo’s motion to withdraw from arbitration, finding that JMM’s late payment constituted a material breach under section 1281.98, which does not allow exceptions for inadvertent delays or lack of prejudice. The court lifted the stay on trial court proceedings, allowing the case to proceed in court.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. The court held that section 1281.98 did not apply because the parties entered into a post-dispute stipulation to arbitrate, not a pre-dispute arbitration agreement. Additionally, JMM was not considered the “drafting party” as defined by section 1280, subdivision (e), which refers to the company that included a pre-dispute arbitration provision in a contract. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded with instructions to deny Trujillo’s motion to withdraw from arbitration and to reinstate the stay of trial court proceedings pending completion of arbitration. View "Trujillo v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Edgar Gonzalez worked for Nowhere Santa Monica, one of ten related LLCs operating Erewhon markets in Los Angeles. As a condition of his employment, he signed an arbitration agreement with Nowhere Santa Monica. Gonzalez later filed a class action lawsuit against all ten Nowhere entities, alleging various Labor Code violations. He claimed that all entities were his joint employers, sharing control over his employment conditions.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted the motion to compel arbitration for Nowhere Santa Monica but denied it for the other entities, finding no evidence that Gonzalez's claims against the non-signatory entities were intertwined with his claims against Nowhere Santa Monica. Gonzalez then dismissed his complaint against Nowhere Santa Monica, and the other entities appealed.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that Gonzalez was equitably estopped from avoiding arbitration with the non-Santa Monica entities because his claims against them were intimately founded in and intertwined with his employment agreement with Nowhere Santa Monica. The court reasoned that Gonzalez's joint employer theory inherently linked his claims to the obligations under the employment agreement, which contained an arbitration clause. Therefore, it would be unfair for Gonzalez to claim joint employment for liability purposes while denying the arbitration agreement's applicability.The appellate court reversed the lower court's order denying the motion to compel arbitration for the non-Santa Monica entities, concluding that all of Gonzalez's claims should be arbitrated. View "Gonzalez v. Nowhere Beverly Hills LLC" on Justia Law

Amanda Leigh Huskins and Jay R. Huskins purchased a house from Mungo Homes, LLC, and signed a contract that included an arbitration clause. This clause required any demand for arbitration to be made within ninety days, effectively shortening the statute of limitations for any claims. The Huskins later filed a lawsuit against Mungo Homes, alleging various claims related to the sale. Mungo Homes moved to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration based on the contract. The Huskins argued that the arbitration clause was unconscionable and unenforceable.The Circuit Court of Richland County granted Mungo Homes' motion to compel arbitration. The Huskins appealed, and the Court of Appeals found the clause limiting the statute of limitations to be unconscionable and unenforceable. However, the Court of Appeals severed this clause from the rest of the arbitration agreement and affirmed the order compelling arbitration.The Supreme Court of South Carolina reviewed the case and reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held that the clause shortening the statute of limitations was void and illegal as a matter of public policy, and therefore unenforceable. The court determined that the absence of a severability clause, the presence of a merger clause, and the fact that the contract was an adhesion contract indicated that the parties did not intend for the arbitration agreement to stand if any part of it fell. Consequently, the entire arbitration agreement was deemed unenforceable. The case was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings, with the remainder of the contract unaffected by this ruling. View "Huskins v. Mungo Homes, LLC" on Justia Law

Karl Hansen sued Tesla, Inc., its CEO Elon Musk, and U.S. Security Associates (USSA), alleging retaliation for reporting misconduct at Tesla. Hansen, initially hired by Tesla, was later employed by USSA. He reported thefts, narcotics trafficking, and improper contracts at Tesla, and filed a report with the SEC. After Musk saw Hansen at the Gigafactory and demanded his removal, USSA reassigned Hansen, which he claimed was retaliatory.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada ordered most of Hansen’s claims to arbitration, except his Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) claim. The arbitrator dismissed Hansen’s non-SOX claims, finding no contractual right to work at the Gigafactory and no reasonable belief of securities law violations. The district court confirmed the arbitration award and dismissed Hansen’s SOX claim, holding that the arbitrator’s findings precluded relitigation of issues essential to the SOX claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that while an arbitrator’s decision cannot preclude a SOX claim, a confirmed arbitral award can preclude relitigation of issues underlying such a claim. The court found that the arbitrator’s decision, which concluded Hansen had no reasonable belief of securities law violations, precluded his SOX claim. The court also held that the arbitrator’s findings on Hansen’s state law claims had a preclusive effect, as they were confirmed by the district court. Thus, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Hansen’s complaint. View "Hansen v. Musk" on Justia Law

A woman and a man were married in July 2003 and separated in March 2022. Before their marriage, the woman had an employer-provided deferred compensation plan with a balance between $63,131.23 and $67,536.80. During the marriage, she continued contributing to the plan until 2006. She made significant withdrawals from the account for marital expenses, including $40,000 in 2009 and $75,000 in 2016. In 2018, the remaining funds were transferred to a USAA account and then to a Charles Schwab IRA account in 2020, which was valued at $102,100.55 at the time of trial. The parties disputed whether these funds were marital or nonmarital.The parties engaged in mediation in March 2022 and appeared before the superior court to memorialize their agreement. The court noted that the parties had agreed to allocate the assets and debts of the marriage with one exception related to the disputed account. The woman was to provide additional information to confirm that the marital portion of the account had already been spent. However, the parties had conflicting interpretations of this proviso, leading to further disputes.The Alaska Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court found that the superior court had erred in its legal conclusions. It ruled that the use of some funds for marital expenditures did not demonstrate an intent to donate the entire account to the marriage. Additionally, the court held that when a mixed account contains both premarital and marital funds, the default rule is "first in, last out," meaning premarital funds are not withdrawn until all marital funds have been exhausted. The court vacated the superior court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the respective separate and marital portions of the account. View "Rush v. Rush" on Justia Law

Sky Moore rented a car from Budget Car and Truck Rental of Las Vegas, owned by Malco Enterprises of Nevada, Inc. Sky named Daniel Moore as an additional driver, who later rear-ended Alelign Woldeyohannes while intoxicated. Alelign sued Daniel for negligence and Malco for negligent entrustment. Daniel did not respond, resulting in a default judgment against him. The case proceeded to arbitration, where Alelign was awarded $32,680.26. Malco requested a trial de novo, leading to a short trial where the judge entered a default judgment against Daniel for $37,886.82.Alelign moved to apply the default judgment against Malco under NRS 482.305(1), which holds short-term lessors liable for damages if they fail to provide minimum insurance coverage. Malco opposed, arguing that NRS 482.305 is preempted by the Graves Amendment, which prohibits states from holding vehicle lessors vicariously liable without negligence or wrongdoing. The short trial judge granted Alelign’s motion, and the district court affirmed, concluding that NRS 482.305 is a financial responsibility law preserved by the Graves Amendment’s savings clause.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that NRS 482.305 is not preempted by the Graves Amendment because it is a financial responsibility law preserved by the savings clause under 49 U.S.C. § 30106(b). The court emphasized that NRS 482.305 imposes a legal requirement for lessors to provide minimum coverage, rather than a mere financial inducement, and does not impose strict vicarious liability on lessors. View "Malco Enterprises of Nevada, Inc. vs. Woldeyohannes" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs BSI Group LLC and International Business Solutions Group, LLC, financial service companies, contracted with EZBanc Corp for financial services. EZBanc collaborated with Solid Financial Technologies, Inc. and Evolve Bank & Trust to provide these services. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants mishandled funds, withdrawing nearly $9 million from their accounts and failing to process approximately $300,000 in third-party payments. Defendants sought to compel arbitration, arguing that although EZBanc’s contracts with Plaintiffs lacked an arbitration clause, the contracts referred to other terms that included such a clause.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas denied Defendants' motions to compel arbitration. The court found that the language in the contracts was too vague to incorporate the Evolve Agreement by reference and that there was a factual dispute regarding whether the terms of the Evolve Agreement were known or easily available to Plaintiffs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court erred in its interpretation of the contract and its denial of the motion to compel arbitration. The appellate court found that there were material disputes of fact regarding whether the Evolve Agreement was effectively communicated to Plaintiffs, which necessitated a trial. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for trial to determine if Plaintiffs agreed to be bound by the terms in the Evolve Agreement through the “pop-up” or other aspects of EZBanc’s website. View "BSI Group LLC v. Solid Financial Technologies Inc." on Justia Law