Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

Two individuals each owned companies that distributed snack foods for a larger food company. Years earlier, they had joined a class action lawsuit claiming that the company misclassified them as independent contractors rather than employees. That class action ended in a settlement, which included an optional provision: class members could agree to arbitrate future disputes in exchange for an additional payment. Both individuals opted into that provision and accepted the payment, thereby agreeing to resolve future disputes through arbitration.Several years later, the two individuals brought a new lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, again asserting claims related to alleged misclassification and seeking damages. The defendant company moved to stay the case and compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), citing the prior agreement. The plaintiffs opposed, arguing that they were exempt from the FAA as transportation workers under Section 1. The district court rejected that exemption argument, but did not order arbitration. Instead, it stayed and administratively closed the case without entering judgment, stating it was not compelling arbitration but was closing its doors to further proceedings.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s handling. The court held that, although the district court did not expressly deny the motion to compel arbitration, its actions amounted to a denial, and thus appellate jurisdiction existed under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(B). The First Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings, directing the district court to determine whether the motion to compel arbitration should be granted or denied and to explain its reasoning. The court also clarified that, under the parties’ agreement, any compelled arbitration must proceed on an individual, not class, basis. View "Perruzzi v. The Campbell's Company" on Justia Law

This case arises from multi-district litigation involving claims that certain aqueous film-forming foam products caused injuries, and that Illinois Union Insurance Company issued excess liability policies to BASF Corporation, which allegedly designed and sold components of those products. Plaintiffs, who originally filed their cases in Wisconsin state court, assert that Illinois Union is directly liable under Wisconsin law for BASF’s conduct. After removal to federal court, the cases were consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina under the multi-district litigation statute.The District Court for the District of South Carolina, managing the consolidated proceedings, had entered case management orders requiring motions either to be signed by lead counsel or, if not, to be preceded by a motion for leave of court. Illinois Union sought leave to file a motion to stay the proceedings against it pending arbitration, contending that its insurance policies required arbitration of the dispute. The district court denied Illinois Union’s motion for leave, first citing a failure to consult with lead counsel as required, but then acknowledging that consultation had ultimately occurred. The decisive reason for denial was that lead counsel did not consent to Illinois Union’s motion, and the district court ruled that, absent such consent, the motion could not be filed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s order. It held that, while district courts have broad discretion to manage multi-district litigation, they may not exercise this authority in a way that prevents a party from asserting its statutory right under the Federal Arbitration Act to seek a stay of litigation pending arbitration. Because the district court’s order effectively barred Illinois Union from filing its stay motion based on lack of lead counsel’s consent, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bouvet v. Illinois Union Insurance Company" on Justia Law

A former employee brought suit against his prior employer, alleging that the employer’s compensation plan for commissions violated several provisions of the California Labor Code. The employee claimed that the employer’s use of a “windfall” provision, which limited commission payments when revenue goals were substantially exceeded, resulted in retroactive reductions to earned commissions. The employer invoked this provision after the employee and others exceeded their sales goals, causing the employee’s final commission payment to be lower than anticipated. The employee resigned and later sought civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), as well as damages for alleged unpaid wages and other Labor Code violations.The Superior Court of Alameda County compelled arbitration of the employee’s individual claims but allowed the PAGA claims to proceed in court. During arbitration, the arbitrator found in favor of the employer on all individual claims, concluding that the compensation plan’s “windfall” provision did not violate the Labor Code sections at issue. The arbitrator determined that the commissions in question were not subject to the statutory requirements argued by the employee, and that the plan did not involve unlawful wage recapture or secret underpayment. The trial court confirmed the arbitration award, denied the employee’s motion for summary adjudication on the PAGA claim, and subsequently granted the employer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the arbitration resolved the issue of whether the employee was an “aggrieved employee” with standing under PAGA.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, affirmed the lower court’s judgment. The court held that the arbitration agreement was not illusory, that the arbitrator’s findings precluded the employee from maintaining PAGA standing, and that the employer’s commission plan did not violate the cited Labor Code provisions. The judgment in favor of the employer was affirmed. View "Sorokunov v. NetApp, Inc." on Justia Law

A financial advisor sold her company to a buyer, with a portion of the purchase price to be paid up front and the remainder in quarterly installments. When the buyer failed to make the scheduled payments, the seller initiated arbitration through the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), as required by their agreement. The arbitration panel found the buyer in default and awarded damages to the seller. The buyer then sought to vacate the arbitration award in the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, arguing that one of the arbitrators had “evident partiality” due to undisclosed past connections with the seller and her company.The circuit court reviewed the motion to vacate and applied the “evident partiality” standard as interpreted by the Fourth Circuit in ANR Coal Co., Inc. v. Cogentrix of N.C., Inc., and denied the motion, finding no clear evidence of bias. The buyer appealed to the Court of Appeals of Virginia, which affirmed the circuit court’s decision. The appellate court concluded that the arbitrator’s prior connections with the seller and her company were too remote and insubstantial to suggest partiality, and that the undisclosed interactions did not create an appearance of bias that would require vacatur of the award.The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed the case to clarify the standard for “evident partiality” under the Virginia Uniform Arbitration Act. The court held that, to vacate an arbitration award for evident partiality, a party must objectively show that a reasonable person, knowing all relevant facts, would perceive the arbitrator’s conduct as obvious bias against that party. Applying this standard, the Supreme Court of Virginia found that the arbitrator’s remote and inconsequential past connections did not meet this threshold. The court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded for further proceedings regarding attorney fees. View "Garofalo v. Di Vincenzo" on Justia Law

The plaintiff was employed as a legal assistant and later a paralegal in a law firm’s Liquor Group, initially at one firm and then at another firm, Adams and Reese, LLP, after her group switched employers. She alleged that a supervisor, who moved with the group, persistently directed sexualized comments and jokes at her in the workplace, which included derogatory remarks, inappropriate suggestions, and comments about her appearance and personal life. She also claimed that after her employer changed her work schedule, she experienced difficulties related to her disabilities and was subsequently terminated when she was unable to comply with the new attendance requirements. She brought claims of sexual harassment and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee reviewed the employer’s motions to dismiss the sexual harassment claim and to compel arbitration of the ADA claims, based on an arbitration agreement between the parties. The district court denied both motions, holding that the plaintiff sufficiently stated a plausible sexual harassment claim under applicable standards and that the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA) barred enforcement of the arbitration agreement as to her entire case, not just the sexual harassment claim.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the plaintiff’s complaint plausibly alleged pervasive sexual harassment sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. It further determined that the EFAA renders predispute arbitration agreements unenforceable with respect to an entire “case” relating to a sexual harassment dispute, not just the specific sexual harassment claim. Therefore, the arbitration agreement could not be enforced as to any of the plaintiff’s claims in this action. The disposition was to affirm and remand for further proceedings. View "Bruce v. Adams & Reese, LLP" on Justia Law

A Montana limited liability company and its sole member obtained a $450,000 loan secured by real property from a lender affiliated with New York-based entities. The loan documents included a promissory note, guaranty, and deed of trust, all referencing the lender as Axos Bank, though the servicing and assignment of the loan eventually resided with the lender’s subsidiaries. The loan imposed a high annual interest rate, and after the company defaulted, the property was sold. The borrower alleges it paid more than twice the loan amount and asserts that the lender’s arrangement with Axos Bank was a scheme to avoid Montana’s usury laws.The borrowers sued in the Montana Eighteenth Judicial District Court, seeking, among other relief, a declaration that the lender—not Axos Bank—was the true lender and subject to Montana usury law. The lender moved to dismiss and compel arbitration under the arbitration provisions in the loan documents. The District Court considered extrinsic evidence, including the borrower’s declaration, and found that the arbitration provisions conflicted with bold, capitalized jury trial waiver language, resulting in ambiguity. The District Court determined that the borrower had not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived its constitutional right of access to the courts, denied the motion to compel arbitration, and the lender appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the District Court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration de novo. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the loan documents were ambiguous due to conflicting provisions regarding dispute resolution, and that such ambiguity prevented the borrower from giving the required knowing, voluntary, and intelligent consent to arbitrate and waive constitutional rights. As a result, the arbitration provisions were held unenforceable, and the District Court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration was affirmed. View "Bluebird v. World Business Lenders" on Justia Law

A man was admitted to a long-term healthcare facility by his wife, who signed all required admission documents, including an arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement stated that all disputes related to the facility’s care would be resolved by binding arbitration, but it was not a condition of admission or continued care. After the man’s death, his wife, individually and on behalf of his wrongful death beneficiaries, sued the facility and two nurses, alleging improper care and treatment resulting in his death.The defendants moved to compel arbitration, contending there was a valid agreement and that the wife had the authority to enter into it as her husband’s healthcare surrogate, since he allegedly lacked capacity at admission. The wife countered that there had been no proper determination of her husband’s incapacity at the time of admission and, regardless, that signing an arbitration agreement was not a healthcare decision. The Hinds County Circuit Court denied the motion to compel arbitration, relying on precedent holding that a healthcare surrogate’s authority is limited to healthcare decisions, and that an arbitration agreement is not a healthcare decision unless it is an essential part of receiving care. The court found that, since arbitration was not a condition of admission or care, the wife lacked authority to bind her husband.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the denial de novo. The Court reaffirmed that under Mississippi law, a surrogate’s authority extends only to healthcare decisions, and an arbitration agreement is only such a decision if required for admission or care. Because the arbitration agreement in this case was not a condition of admission or care, the wife lacked authority to execute it. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration and to stay proceedings, holding the arbitration agreement invalid and unenforceable. View "Manhattan Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC v. Hawkins" on Justia Law

David Christianson was employed during the 2023-24 school year as a teacher at Grand Forks Red River High School, holding both a standard teaching contract and two additional “director contracts” for Pep Band Director and Music-Instrumental Head Director. After two pranks occurred under his supervision at graduation events, Christianson was reassigned to a different school and his director contracts were not renewed. He pursued a grievance with the School District, culminating in a formal hearing and a School Board denial of his appeal. The School Board subsequently issued a written decision two days after the contractual deadline, prompting Christianson to formally object.The case was reviewed by the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The School District argued Christianson was required to arbitrate his grievance before pursuing litigation, while Christianson claimed the School District failed to follow mandatory nonrenewal procedures. The district court found that the School District had waived its right to enforce arbitration by not complying with contractual notice requirements and determined that Christianson’s director contracts were extracurricular, not curricular. Therefore, statutory nonrenewal procedures did not apply. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the School District.Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota reviewed the case de novo. The Court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the School District’s failure to timely provide written notice constituted a waiver of its right to require arbitration. The Court further held that Christianson’s director contracts were extracurricular and not subject to teacher contract nonrenewal protections under North Dakota law. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Christianson v. Grand Forks Public School District" on Justia Law

A steel subcontractor was hired to perform work for a university construction project and entered into a subcontract with the general contractor. The general contractor began defaulting on payments, prompting the subcontractor to notify the surety insurance company, which had issued a payment bond guaranteeing payment for labor, materials, and equipment. The surety made partial payment but disputed the remaining amount. The subcontractor then demanded arbitration against the contractor, with the surety notified and invited to participate. The contractor filed for bankruptcy and did not defend in arbitration, nor did the surety participate. The arbitrator awarded the subcontractor damages, including attorneys’ fees and interest, and the award was confirmed in court. The subcontractor sought to enforce the arbitration award against the surety, including attorneys’ fees and prejudgment interest, and also brought a bad faith claim under Pennsylvania’s insurance statute.The Centre County Court of Common Pleas initially excluded evidence of the arbitration award against the surety at trial and ruled the surety was not liable for attorneys’ fees or bad faith damages. A jury found for the subcontractor on the underlying debt, and the court awarded prejudgment interest at the statutory rate. Both parties appealed. The Superior Court held the arbitration award was binding and conclusive against the surety, who had notice and opportunity to participate, and affirmed liability for attorneys’ fees related to pursuing the contractor in arbitration. The court rejected the bad faith claim, holding the statute did not apply to surety bonds, and confirmed the statutory interest rate.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed in all respects. It held that Pennsylvania’s insurance bad faith statute does not apply to surety bonds, based on statutory language. The court also held that the surety is bound by the arbitration award against its principal, and is liable for attorneys’ fees incurred in arbitration and prejudgment interest at the statutory rate. View "Eastern Steel v. Int Fidelity Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In 2014, Russia invaded and subsequently asserted control over Crimea, an area internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. Ukrainian businesses operating in Crimea—including an electricity distributor and a group of petrol station owners—had their assets seized and operations transferred to Russian-controlled entities without compensation. These businesses, having made investments under Ukrainian law and while the 1998 Agreement Between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on the Encouragement and Mutual Protection of Investments (“Investment Treaty”) was in effect, pursued arbitration against Russia for expropriation and treaty violations.The Ukrainian companies initiated separate arbitrations under the Investment Treaty’s arbitration clause. The arbitral tribunals found Russia liable for breaches and awarded significant damages to the companies. Russia challenged the arbitral jurisdiction and the awards in foreign courts, but those efforts were unsuccessful. The companies then filed petitions in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to enforce the awards under the New York Convention and the Federal Arbitration Act. Russia moved to dismiss, arguing the courts lacked subject-matter and personal jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The District Court rejected Russia’s arguments, finding jurisdiction appropriate under the FSIA’s arbitration exception and personal jurisdiction proper upon valid service.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed whether the District Court correctly exercised jurisdiction. The appellate court held that the FSIA’s arbitration exception applied because the companies established the existence of an arbitration agreement, a qualifying arbitral award, and a treaty potentially governing enforcement. The court further held that foreign states are not entitled to the Fifth Amendment’s due process protections against personal jurisdiction. The judgments of the District Court were affirmed. View "Stabil LLC v. Russian Federation" on Justia Law