Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

This case involves a dispute among business partners regarding the calculation and distribution of administrative fees earned from the sale of shares in a jointly managed investment fund. Prospect Capital Management L.P. (“Prospect”) acted as the fund administrator, while Stratera Holdings, LLC (“Stratera”) and Destra Capital Managers LLC (“Destra”) were entitled to share in fees depending on how fund shares were issued, including through a dividend reinvestment program (“DRIP”). After a change in sub-wholesaler, ambiguity arose in the contract language about whether certain DRIP shares—specifically, those issued by Stratera’s predecessor, Provasi—should be included in fee calculations. Prospect excluded these shares, reducing the amount paid to Stratera and Destra.Stratera and Destra initiated arbitration under the contract’s dispute resolution clause. The arbitration panel’s initial “Interim Award” found that Prospect had breached the contract by excluding DRIP shares for which Destra served as sub-wholesaler, but the award’s language left unclear whether this ruling applied to DRIP shares issued earlier by Provasi. When the parties could not agree on the scope of the award, the panel issued a revised interim award clarifying that fees were owed for DRIP shares issued by both Provasi and Destra. Prospect then petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Delaware to vacate the revised award, arguing that the arbitrators had unlawfully revisited a final decision in violation of the functus officio doctrine. The District Court rejected this claim, finding that the ambiguity exception to functus officio permitted the arbitrators’ clarification.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order. The court held that the ambiguity exception to the functus officio doctrine applied because the interim award was susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation. Therefore, the panel acted within its authority in clarifying its award. View "Prospect Capital Management LP v. Stratera Holdings LLC" on Justia Law

Sylvia Morales was employed by San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for nearly two decades before being terminated. She filed a lawsuit alleging wrongful termination, asserting violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), including claims of disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in an interactive process, and retaliation. Morales’s claims relied on statutory protections and a common law Tameny claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, not on any alleged breach of her employment agreement.After Morales filed her complaint, SDG&E moved to compel arbitration based on provisions in documents Morales had signed at hiring. The Superior Court of San Diego County granted the motion, concluding that the employment agreement’s arbitration clause covered all claims arising from Morales’s employment. The court reasoned that because the agreement described the employment as at-will, any claim based on exceptions to at-will employment constituted a dispute regarding an aspect of the agreement and thus was subject to arbitration.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One reviewed the case. Applying principles of contract interpretation, the court focused on the language of the arbitration provision in the September 12, 2005 agreement, which limited arbitration to disputes regarding any aspect of the agreement or any act violating the agreement. The court held that Morales’s statutory and public policy claims did not arise from the employment agreement nor did they allege violation of its terms; thus, the arbitration provision did not apply. The court issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order compelling arbitration and to deny SDG&E’s motion. The main holding is that the agreement’s arbitration provision does not compel arbitration of Morales’s FEHA, CFRA, or Tameny claims. View "Morales v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

In 2017, an investment entity loaned approximately 160 million Chinese yuan to an individual, who failed to repay the loan. The lender obtained an arbitral award against the borrower from the Beijing Arbitration Commission for around 150 million yuan. A Singaporean court later ordered the borrower to pay the award, but he still did not comply. The lender, knowing the borrower had been living in California for about two years, sought to enforce the foreign arbitral award in the United States under the Federal Arbitration Act by filing a petition in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Attempts to serve process directly on the borrower at his California residence were unsuccessful. Eventually, the petition was left with another adult at the residence, mailed, and emailed to the borrower, who later acknowledged receiving notice.The borrower moved to dismiss the case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, arguing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) that the court lacked personal jurisdiction because his domicile was China and the underlying dispute had no connection to California. He did not raise a defense under Rule 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process. The district court found that it had general personal jurisdiction over the borrower based on his physical presence in California and confirmed the arbitral award.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require that presence-based personal jurisdiction be conditioned on service of process on the defendant’s person; other means of service are sufficient if the defendant is physically present in the forum state. The court declined to address the sufficiency of service of process because the borrower had waived this argument by not raising it in district court. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment. View "SHENZHEN ZEHUIJIN INVESTMENT CENTER V. YINGKUI" on Justia Law

A Nebraska auction company and its former independent sales representative (ISR) entered into a written agreement containing restrictive covenants, including a noncompete clause, and an arbitration provision governed by the Federal Arbitration Act. The ISR terminated the relationship and began working for a competitor, allegedly violating the noncompete clause. The auction company sued for breach of contract, injunctive relief, and tortious interference, seeking a temporary injunction to prevent the ISR’s competitive activities.The District Court for Hall County compelled arbitration for the breach of contract and tortious interference claims but retained jurisdiction to decide the request for injunctive relief, ultimately granting a temporary injunction against the ISR. While the arbitration was pending, the ISR sought to dissolve the injunction and later moved for damages, costs, and attorney fees under Nebraska’s injunction undertaking statute after the arbitrator ruled the restrictive covenants unenforceable and awarded certain damages to the ISR. The arbitrator also found that additional damages based on the invalidation of the restrictive covenants were speculative and not recoverable. The District Court confirmed the arbitral award and denied the ISR’s subsequent motion for additional damages, reasoning that the arbitral award was preclusive as to all damages except attorney fees and expenses.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that, due to the scope of the arbitration and the confirmation of the arbitrator’s award, the ISR could not recover further damages for the wrongful injunction that overlapped with claims already addressed in arbitration. However, the Court held that attorney fees and expenses related to resisting the issuance and seeking dissolution of the wrongful injunction were not foreclosed by the arbitration and should be awarded. The Supreme Court modified the lower court’s judgment to include $11,000 in such fees and otherwise affirmed the judgment. View "Big Iron Auction Co. v. Harder Capital" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a remote engineer working for a California-based software company, was living and working in Utah when he was arrested in Florida during a vacation. After his release from detention, the employer terminated his employment, allegedly based on information about the arrest, which did not lead to a conviction. The plaintiff claimed that this termination violated California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and Labor Code section 432.7, both of which prohibit employment decisions based on arrests not resulting in conviction.The case was initially filed in San Mateo County Superior Court but was stayed for binding arbitration due to provisions in the plaintiff’s employment documents. During arbitration, the parties disputed whether California law applied to the plaintiff’s claims, since he worked outside California and the termination decision was made in Illinois. The arbitrator concluded that California law could not apply extraterritorially to the plaintiff, as his principal place of work was Utah and the relevant employment actions occurred outside California. The parties stipulated that no other state’s law provided a cause of action for unlawful termination based on an arrest without conviction, and the arbitrator issued an award for the employer.The plaintiff petitioned the Superior Court to vacate the arbitration award, arguing that the arbitrator’s analysis was not properly tailored to the statutes at issue and that connections to California were sufficient. The court denied the petition, finding that the arbitrator correctly applied California’s standards for extraterritoriality. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, affirmed the denial. The court held that neither FEHA section 12952 nor Labor Code section 432.7 applied extraterritorially under these facts, as the plaintiff and his arrest had no connection to California and the termination decision was made outside the state. View "Saberin v. Alation, Inc." on Justia Law

A former employee brought suit against her previous employer and associated fiduciaries, alleging that they mismanaged the employer's retirement savings plan, which is a defined contribution plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). She claimed that the fiduciaries retained underperforming investment options in the plan’s menu to generate transaction fees, in violation of their duties of prudence and loyalty, and sought plan-wide monetary and equitable relief on behalf of the plan.Previously, the United States District Court for the Central District of California reviewed the case. The defendants moved to compel arbitration, relying on provisions in the plan requiring arbitration of disputes and waiving participants’ rights to bring claims on a “class, collective, or representative basis.” The plaintiff argued that this waiver impermissibly precluded her from enforcing statutory rights under ERISA, which allow participants to sue on behalf of the plan for plan-wide relief. The district court denied the motion to compel arbitration, finding the waiver unenforceable under the effective-vindication doctrine and holding that the waiver provision was expressly non-severable, thus requiring the claims to proceed in court.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration. The Ninth Circuit held that the plan’s waiver provision was unenforceable because it prevented the plaintiff from asserting her right under ERISA to bring representative claims for plan-wide relief—a right that ERISA expressly provides. The court further held that, under the plan’s own terms, once the waiver was found unenforceable, any representative claim must be adjudicated in court, not arbitration. Thus, the plaintiff’s breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims would proceed before the district court. View "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC." on Justia Law

Neils Point, LLC owns a farm property in Harpswell, Maine, which it leased to Joseph and Laura Grady for agricultural use. The Gradys resided on the property and operated the farm under successive lease agreements, culminating in a 2017 extension titled “Commercial Agricultural Lease Agreement.” This lease specified that it was not a residential rental, set rent as a percentage of the farm’s net proceeds, and required arbitration for disputes. Neils Point alleged that the Gradys breached the lease by miscalculating rent, failing to pay on time, and not using the land as productive cropland.After Neils Point initiated arbitration in 2024, the Gradys responded by admitting the dispute was subject to arbitration and made their own arbitration demand under the lease. The arbitration hearing was held in July 2025, with both parties participating fully and without objection to either the process or the arbitrability of the dispute. The arbitrator found in favor of Neils Point, concluding that the Gradys breached the lease by improperly deducting expenses, failing to pay rent, and not maintaining the farm’s productivity. Damages were awarded, and the Gradys were ordered to vacate the property.The Cumberland County Superior Court confirmed the arbitration award and denied the Gradys’ subsequent motion to vacate, in which they argued for the first time that the arbitration provision was void because the lease was residential and the arbitrator exceeded his authority. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the Gradys’ participation in arbitration without objection waived their right to challenge the validity of the arbitration clause or the arbitrator’s authority. The Court further held that the arbitrator’s construction of the lease was rational, and thus confirmation of the award was proper. View "Neils Point, LLC v. Grady" on Justia Law

Matthew Goforth, through MG Management Co., LLC, entered a dealer agreement with Sears Authorized Home Stores that included a broad non-compete provision, extending restrictions to his spouse, Malinda Goforth. After Matt decided not to renew the agreement, Sears suspected the Goforths would open a competing business and initiated arbitration, seeking to enforce the non-compete. The Goforths opposed enforcement, asserting the provision was unreasonable. The arbitrator initially denied emergency injunctive relief but later, upon learning that Matt and Malinda were opening Goforth Home & Lawn, granted interim relief enforcing the non-compete and added Malinda and her company as parties. A final arbitration award enforced the non-compete, but an appellate arbitrator later held the provision unenforceable while affirming attorneys’ fees to Sears. Subsequently, the Goforths initiated a second arbitration alleging antitrust violations, but the arbitrator determined their antitrust claims were compulsory counterclaims that should have been brought in the first arbitration.Following Sears’s bankruptcy, the Goforths brought an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri against Sears’s owners, Transform Holdco, LLC and affiliates, asserting the same antitrust claims. Transform moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were compulsory counterclaims barred by their failure to raise them in the initial arbitration. The district court agreed, holding the claims accrued upon Sears’s initiation of the first arbitration and were thus subject to compulsory counterclaim rules. The court granted summary judgment for Transform and did not address alternative grounds or the Goforths’ partial summary judgment motion.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Eighth Circuit held that the Goforths’ antitrust claims accrued when Sears initiated the first arbitration, making them compulsory counterclaims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13. The court also held that Malinda and her company were bound by the agreement’s arbitration provision. View "Goforth v. Transform Holdco, LLC" on Justia Law

Spanish investment companies alleged that Argentina unlawfully expropriated their airline investments, violating a bilateral treaty. After Argentina took over private airlines, the investors initiated arbitration at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). The ICSID tribunal awarded over $320 million to the investors, and an internal appellate committee later affirmed the award and added more than $1 million in costs. The investors then assigned their rights to Titan Consortium 1, LLC, which sought enforcement of the award in the United States four years after the initial award.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia reviewed Titan’s petition to enforce the arbitral award. Argentina moved to dismiss, arguing the petition was untimely under a three-year statute of limitations. The district court denied the motion, holding that the twelve-year statute of limitations for enforcement of money judgments under D.C. Code § 15-101 applied. It granted summary judgment for Titan, enforcing the award.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed Argentina’s appeal, which challenged only the timeliness ruling. The court considered which statute of limitations applies to enforcement actions under 22 U.S.C. § 1650a, the statute implementing the Washington Convention. The court held that D.C. Code § 15-101’s twelve-year limitations period for enforcement of money judgments is the closest analogue and applies to petitions enforcing ICSID awards under § 1650a. It rejected Argentina’s arguments for a three-year limitations period under federal or D.C. arbitration statutes, noting the differences in statutory text and enforcement procedures. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding Titan’s enforcement action was timely. View "Titan Consortium 1, LLC v. Argentine Republic" on Justia Law

Several related companies, along with an individual, operated the Inn of Chicago. After purchasing the property, they assumed an existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with a labor union. When the City of Chicago approached them to use the Inn to house displaced migrants, the operation resumed, but the employers did not use union members for typical hotel functions. Instead, these tasks were handled by an outside staffing agency and later by another company managed by the same people. The labor union learned of this arrangement, filed grievances alleging violations of the CBA, and submitted the dispute to arbitration. The union also filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board, which was consolidated with the arbitration.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, reviewed the arbitration award. The arbitrator had found that the Inn was operating as a “hotel” within the meaning of the CBA while housing migrants, that the related companies and individual were a “single employer” under the CBA, and that they violated both the CBA and the National Labor Relations Act by failing to use union employees and failing to provide notice or bargain with the union. The district court confirmed the arbitration award, rejecting the employers’ arguments regarding arbitrability, notice, and authority.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s confirmation of the arbitration award. The court held that the employers were bound by the arbitration because they participated without reserving objections, and the arbitrator’s findings drew from the CBA and issues submitted by the parties. The court found no due process or public policy violation and affirmed the district court’s confirmation of the award. View "Elmar Hotel Management, LLC v Unite Here Local 1" on Justia Law