Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

In this case, the plaintiff, acting individually and on behalf of a proposed class, alleged that the defendant, a health insurance marketing company, violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending her a prerecorded telemarketing call without her prior express consent. The defendant argued that the plaintiff had given such consent when she used a third-party “lead generation” website operated by a non-party, where she filled out a form seeking insurance quotes. The online process included an agreement (the “Terms of Use”) with an arbitration clause covering disputes related to the website’s use and consent to be contacted by marketing partners, although the defendant was not named in the agreement.After the plaintiff filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, the defendant moved to compel arbitration, arguing that it could enforce the arbitration clause as a third-party beneficiary under Delaware law. The district court denied the motion, holding that, although the defendant benefited from the agreement, it was not a third-party beneficiary because the benefit was not central to the contract’s purpose. The court also determined that, under Fourth Circuit precedent, the court—not an arbitrator—must decide whether a non-signatory like the defendant can enforce the arbitration agreement.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of arbitration de novo. The Fourth Circuit agreed that the district court, not an arbitrator, was the proper forum to decide the defendant’s standing to enforce the arbitration clause. However, the court disagreed with the district court’s interpretation of Delaware law, concluding that the benefit to the defendant was material to the agreement’s purpose, making the defendant a third-party beneficiary. The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s order and remanded with instructions to compel arbitration and stay the federal court proceedings. View "Sessoms v. USHealth Advisors, LLC" on Justia Law

Jeffrey Olson leased a Jeep Grand Cherokee from a car dealership under a lease agreement that included an arbitration provision and a delegation clause, which assigned questions about the scope of arbitration to an arbitrator. FCA US, LLC, the manufacturer of the Jeep, was not a signatory to the lease agreement. Olson later became the named plaintiff in a federal class-action lawsuit against FCA, alleging defects in the vehicle’s headrest system. FCA, not being a party to the lease, sought to compel Olson to arbitrate the dispute based on the arbitration agreement between Olson and the dealership.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied FCA’s motion to compel arbitration. The district court found that FCA, as a non-signatory to the lease agreement, could not enforce the arbitration provision or its delegation clause against Olson. The court concluded that the arbitration agreement applied only to Olson and the dealership (including its employees, agents, successors, or assigns), and FCA did not qualify under any of those categories. Additionally, the court rejected FCA’s argument that it could use equitable estoppel to compel arbitration, holding that none of Olson’s claims were sufficiently intertwined with the lease agreement to justify such an exception under California law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that FCA could not compel Olson to arbitrate because FCA was not a party to the arbitration agreement and no applicable exception—such as equitable estoppel—applied. The court clarified that, under both federal and California law, only parties to an arbitration agreement (or those qualifying under specific, limited exceptions) may enforce it. The court also rejected FCA’s reliance on Supreme Court precedent, finding it inapplicable to non-signatories in these circumstances. View "OLSON V. FCA US, LLC" on Justia Law

An off-duty police officer in the District of Columbia shot and seriously injured a man outside a residence in Maryland after suspecting an attempted vehicle break-in. The officer did not call 911 as trained, confronted the individual, and used deadly force, although no weapon or evidence of crime was found on the victim. Following internal reviews, the police department sought to terminate the officer. His union invoked arbitration, as allowed by the collective bargaining agreement.An arbitrator determined that the officer’s conduct was reckless, violated departmental policies, and met the definition of reckless endangerment under Maryland law. However, the arbitrator concluded that termination was not warranted and reduced the discipline to a 45-day suspension, referencing a prior similar case involving another officer. The District of Columbia Public Employee Relations Board (PERB) sustained this sanction. The Superior Court of the District of Columbia affirmed PERB’s decision. On a prior appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals remanded the case, directing PERB to further explain its reasoning regarding whether the arbitral award was contrary to law or public policy.After PERB again upheld the arbitrator’s decision on remand and the Superior Court affirmed, the case returned to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The court reviewed whether the arbitral award was “on its face contrary to law and public policy.” The court held that the award was not contrary to law because the arbitrator did not purport to apply and misapply the Douglas factors, nor was the penalty so disproportionate as to be illegal. The court further held that the award was not contrary to public policy, noting the absence of a statutory or regulatory mandate requiring termination under these circumstances and emphasizing the narrow grounds for overturning arbitral awards on public policy. The court affirmed the judgment upholding PERB’s decision. View "District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Dep't v. District of Columbia Public Employee Relations Board" on Justia Law

The dispute arose from a real estate development joint venture between two groups of entities owned by Jackson and Stevenson, governed by operating agreements containing mandatory arbitration clauses. After Jackson’s entities initiated a buy-sell process to terminate the venture, Stevenson’s entities elected to purchase Jackson’s interest. Shortly after, Jackson terminated a consulting agreement. Stevenson’s entities sought arbitration, naming Jackson’s entities as respondents and later including RICSHA, a company owned by Jackson but not a signatory to the operating agreements. They alleged that Jackson’s entities and RICSHA conspired to deprive the venture of valuable assets prior to the buyout. The arbitrator ordered RICSHA to be joined in the proceedings and ultimately issued an award in favor of Stevenson’s entities against both the Jackson entities and RICSHA.The Superior Court confirmed the arbitration award against all respondents, finding that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers by including RICSHA, and denied RICSHA’s motion to vacate. The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed, holding that the arbitrator permissibly applied principles of equitable estoppel to compel RICSHA to arbitrate and that judicial review of the arbitrator’s ruling was limited under the Federal Arbitration Act.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case on certiorari and concluded that the lower courts erred by deferring to the arbitrator on the threshold question of whether RICSHA, a nonsignatory, could be compelled to arbitrate. The Court held that under Georgia law and the Federal Arbitration Act, equitable estoppel does not apply to compel a nonsignatory defendant to arbitrate claims brought by signatory plaintiffs, absent direct benefits from the agreement. The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, vacated the arbitration award against RICSHA, and remanded for further proceedings. View "JACKSON v. STEVENSON" on Justia Law

Donte Jackson received a $30,000 loan from WebBank, which was later sold to Velocity Investments, LLC. After Jackson defaulted on the loan, Velocity, represented by the law firm Protas, Spivok & Collins LLC (PSC), sued Jackson in Maryland state court to collect the debt. Velocity eventually dismissed the state court suit with prejudice. Subsequently, Jackson brought a class action lawsuit against both Velocity and PSC, alleging that their practice of suing on time-barred debts was unlawful.In the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, both Velocity and PSC moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause in Jackson’s original promissory note. The district court found that Velocity, as a subsequent holder of the note, was a party to the arbitration agreement but had waived its right to arbitrate by filing suit in state court. The court ruled that PSC was not a party to the agreement, as it did not fit the contractual definition of an entity “servicing” the note, which the court interpreted in accordance with Maryland law. Only PSC appealed the denial of its motion to compel arbitration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s ruling de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that PSC, as the law firm representing Velocity, was not a party to the arbitration agreement because it did not “service” the note in the relevant contractual sense, which involves collecting and maintaining a payment schedule for the loan. The court concluded that the arbitration agreement covered only creditors and loan servicers, not lawyers. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of PSC’s motion to compel arbitration. View "Jackson v. Protas, Spivok & Collins LLC" on Justia Law

A Chilean company contracted with an Italian construction firm to design and build a hospital in Santiago, Chile, with disputes to be resolved by arbitration in Chile. The Italian firm later underwent a restructuring proceeding in Italy, during which it spun off its operating business and merged into another Italian company, Webuild S.p.A., which acquired most of its assets. After the contract was terminated due to project delays, arbitration in Chile resulted in an award in favor of the Chilean company and against the original Italian firm. The Chilean courts reduced but otherwise affirmed the arbitral award, and further appeal was denied.Seeking to enforce the arbitral award in the United States, the Chilean company brought an action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Webuild, claiming it was the successor in interest to the award debtor. The company asked the District Court to assert quasi in rem jurisdiction by attaching Webuild’s shares in a Delaware subsidiary. The District Court granted Webuild’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding that there were insufficient contacts between the forum, Webuild, and the underlying controversy. The District Court also held that, even if an exception to the minimum contacts requirement applied, it would not permit jurisdiction here because no court had yet determined that Webuild was indeed liable for the arbitral debt.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Shaffer v. Heitner, a court may exercise traditional quasi in rem jurisdiction to enforce a foreign arbitral award in an action to collect on an already adjudicated debt, without requiring minimum contacts. The appellate court vacated the District Court’s dismissal and remanded for a determination of whether Webuild is the successor in interest to the original award debtor. View "Sociedad Concesionaria Metropolitana de Salud S.A. v. Webuild S.P.A" on Justia Law

A correctional officer who also served as a union representative at a state prison was disciplined after posting materials related to her own prior disciplinary action on a union bulletin board. The materials, which included the surnames of other officers, were visible to inmate workers and were perceived by prison management as potentially fostering a “code of silence” among correctional staff. The officer was suspended for 60 workdays for this posting. She appealed the discipline to the State Personnel Board (SPB), arguing her posting was protected speech regarding the Department’s disciplinary practices. Separately, her union filed a grievance, claiming the suspension violated the memorandum of understanding (MOU) and the Ralph C. Dills Act, which prohibit retaliation for protected union activities.The SPB ultimately upheld the suspension, determining that the posting constituted inexcusable neglect of duty and failure of good behavior, and justified the imposed penalty. The question of whether the discipline was retaliatory under the Dills Act was reserved for arbitration. The arbitrator later found in favor of the union, concluding the Department had retaliated against the officer for protected union activity and failed to prove it would have imposed the same discipline absent that activity. The arbitrator ordered the Department to rescind the discipline and make the officer whole, including backpay.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the trial court’s decision that had struck the arbitrator’s remedy of rescinding the discipline and making the officer whole. The appellate court held that the arbitrator did not exceed her powers by issuing this award and that no explicit public policy or constitutional provision barred the arbitrator’s remedial authority under the MOU and Dills Act. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment and directed entry of a new judgment confirming the arbitration award in its entirety. View "Dept. of Human Resources v. Cal. Correctional Peace Officers" on Justia Law

The case concerns an employee who worked at a Los Angeles hotel and was terminated in March 2020, allegedly due to COVID-19-related staffing issues. The employee sued the hotel and its affiliates in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging federal and state law discrimination claims. However, before starting work, the employee had signed an arbitration agreement covering disputes related to employment or termination. The hotel moved to stay the court proceedings and compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), and the District Court stayed the case pending arbitration. Arbitration proceeded, resulting in an award against the employee on all claims, as well as sanctions for misconduct.After the arbitrator’s award, the hotel moved to confirm the award in the District Court under §9 of the FAA, while the employee sought to vacate it under §10. The employee argued that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to confirm or vacate the award because the post-arbitration motions did not independently satisfy the requirements for federal-question or diversity jurisdiction. The District Court disagreed, held that it retained jurisdiction, and confirmed the arbitral award. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, distinguishing the case from Supreme Court precedent involving freestanding FAA motions, and holding that the District Court’s original jurisdiction over the employee’s federal claims extended to the post-arbitration proceedings.The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Second Circuit’s judgment. It held that when a federal court has original jurisdiction over claims and stays those claims pending arbitration under §3 of the FAA, the court retains jurisdiction to confirm or vacate the resulting arbitral award under §9 and §10. The Court reasoned that nothing in the FAA divests the court of jurisdiction over the original claims while arbitration is pending, and that post-arbitration motions are integral to the resolution of those stayed claims. View "Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties" on Justia Law

A resident of a skilled nursing facility signed an arbitration agreement upon admission. Twelve days later, the resident died. The resident’s husband, acting both individually and as executor of her estate, brought suit in Iowa District Court for Henry County against the nursing facility and several related entities, as well as additional healthcare providers. He alleged negligence, gross negligence, wrongful death, and dependent adult abuse. Nearly a year into the litigation, the nursing facility defendants moved to compel arbitration based on the agreement signed by the decedent.The Iowa District Court for Henry County granted the motion to compel arbitration. The court reasoned that, under the existing Iowa precedent, waiver of the right to arbitrate requires both conduct inconsistent with that right and prejudice to the opposing party—a two-part test established in prior Iowa Supreme Court cases. Applying this standard, the district court found limited prejudice to the plaintiff because discovery had not been extensive and the trial date was still far off. The plaintiff was granted interlocutory appeal.The Supreme Court of Iowa reviewed the case for correction of errors at law. The court determined that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) governed because the agreement involved interstate commerce, and that the FAA preempts Iowa's arbitration-specific waiver rule, which requires a showing of prejudice. Instead, the court held that the generally applicable contract law standard for waiver applies: the voluntary or intentional relinquishment of a known right. Applying this standard, the Supreme Court of Iowa concluded that the nursing facility had impliedly waived its contractual right to arbitration by participating in litigation and discovery for months after being aware of the arbitration agreement, and by delaying a motion to compel arbitration. The Supreme Court of Iowa reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Cole v. Southeast Iowa Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine" on Justia Law

A seaman was severely injured while working on an offshore supply vessel operated by his employer. Following his injury, the employer provided both mandatory and supplemental benefits, including housing and transportation. Six months after the incident, the employer’s executives presented the seaman with an agreement offering continued supplemental benefits in exchange for his commitment to arbitrate any future claims against the company. The agreement included a delegation clause stating that any disputes about the validity, interpretation, or application of the agreement would be resolved by an arbitrator. The seaman signed, acknowledging he had the opportunity to consult an attorney but later alleged he felt pressured and feared losing benefits if he did not sign.The seaman filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, alleging negligence and seeking a declaration that the agreement and its arbitration provisions were invalid due to fraud, duress, and his medical condition. The employer moved to compel arbitration and to stay the litigation, arguing that the delegation clause required an arbitrator to decide issues of enforceability. The district court denied the motion without prejudice and allowed limited discovery on the enforceability of the agreement, concluding it must decide if a valid arbitration agreement existed.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the district court erred by failing to enforce the delegation clause. The appellate court found the seaman’s arguments challenged the agreement as a whole, not the delegation clause specifically. Under Supreme Court precedent, such challenges must be resolved by an arbitrator when a valid delegation clause exists and is not directly challenged. The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s order and compelled arbitration, remanding for further proceedings consistent with this holding. View "Hill v. Jackson Offshore Holdings" on Justia Law