Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

A general contractor and a subcontractor entered into agreements for the construction and renovation of a facility. The subcontracts required disputes to be resolved by arbitration pursuant to the rules of the American Arbitration Association. The subcontractor performed work and submitted invoices, but the general contractor, while timely rejecting the invoices and providing reasons, failed to include the good faith certification required by the Massachusetts prompt pay act. The contractor later paid the invoices after an arbitrator determined that the invoices were deemed approved due to the lack of timely certification. Subsequently, the contractor filed a counterclaim in arbitration seeking recoupment of those payments, arguing the invoices were not fair and reasonable.The subcontractor initially brought suit in the Massachusetts Superior Court, which was then compelled to arbitration per the contract. During arbitration, the arbitrator found that the contractor’s failure to timely certify its rejection of the invoices resulted in the invoices being deemed approved and ordered payment to the subcontractor. After payment, the arbitrator allowed the contractor’s counterclaim for recoupment. Following evidentiary proceedings, the arbitrator ruled in favor of the contractor, awarding partial recoupment. The subcontractor moved in the Superior Court to vacate this award, arguing that the arbitrator exceeded his authority. Relying on J.C. Cannistraro, LLC v. Columbia Construction Co., the Superior Court judge vacated the recoupment portion of the arbitration award, finding that the contractor had asserted defenses before paying the invoices, contrary to precedent.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the matter on direct appellate review. It held that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority because the award was not prohibited by law nor did it violate public policy. The court determined that the prompt pay act did not expressly prohibit recoupment in these circumstances and that the arbitrator’s actions were within the broad scope granted by the parties’ agreement and the arbitration rules. The judgment vacating the arbitration award was reversed and the matter remanded for confirmation of the arbitration award. View "J.C. Cannistraro, LLC v. Columbia Construction Co." on Justia Law

The plaintiff worked as a delivery driver for a furniture distribution company, transporting goods from California warehouses to customers. The furniture was sourced both within and outside California, including from Mexico, and arrived at the distribution centers before being delivered to customers. The plaintiff signed an independent contractor agreement with a delivery-service provider that included an arbitration clause, and subsequently filed two lawsuits against the furniture company and the delivery company: a class action alleging wage and hour violations, and a separate action under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) for civil penalties.The Alameda County Superior Court reviewed the defendants’ omnibus motion to compel arbitration of all claims and to dismiss the plaintiff’s representative PAGA claims. The trial court found that, although the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable and the defendants had not waived their right to arbitrate, the plaintiff qualified as a “transportation worker” under section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and was thus exempt from FAA coverage. As a result, state law governed the enforcement of the arbitration agreement. The court ordered certain claims (reimbursement of expenses, wage statement claims, and unfair competition) to arbitration, but allowed wage claims to proceed in court under Labor Code section 229. It denied the motion to dismiss the representative PAGA claims, citing California Supreme Court precedent, and stayed both actions pending arbitration of individual claims.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division One, reviewed these consolidated appeals. The court held that the plaintiff is a transportation worker exempt from the FAA because he played a direct and active role in the interstate movement of goods, even though his deliveries were intrastate and retail in nature. The court affirmed that the plaintiff has standing to pursue non-individual PAGA claims in court, following Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. The order by the trial court was affirmed. View "Betanco v. Living Spaces Furniture, LLC" on Justia Law

Robert Cocom, a former airport janitor, brought a putative class action against his previous employer, ABM Aviation, Inc., alleging wage and hour violations. When he was hired, Cocom signed a Mutual Arbitration Agreement (MAA) requiring employment-related disputes to be resolved through arbitration. The MAA included waivers of class, collective, and representative actions, as well as a provision stating that arbitration awards would not have preclusive or precedential effect in other proceedings. Cocom’s lawsuit was originally filed in state court but was removed to federal court by ABM, which then moved to compel arbitration and strike the class claims.The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied ABM’s motion, finding the arbitration agreement both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. The court relied heavily on the California Court of Appeal’s decision in Cook v. University of Southern California, interpreting the MAA as having an overly broad scope, indefinite duration, and lack of mutuality, and concluding that certain waivers violated California law. Finding multiple provisions unconscionable, the district court declined to sever them and refused to enforce the MAA.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the MAA’s provisions were distinguishable from those in Cook, noting that the MAA was limited to employment-related disputes, thereby avoiding the overbreadth, indefinite duration, and mutuality issues identified in Cook. The Ninth Circuit also found that any potentially unconscionable waivers (such as those related to representative actions or public injunctive relief) were severable. The main holding was that the MAA was not substantively unconscionable and should be enforced, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "COCOM V. ABM AVIATION, INC." on Justia Law

The United States initiated a lawsuit against Dr. Dongxin Ma and Ma Acupuncture Center, P.C., alleging violations of the False Claims Act. The government claimed that the defendants submitted inflated reimbursement requests for acupuncture services provided to veterans, resulting in improper payments from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The United States sought substantial damages and civil penalties, while the defendants denied liability and asserted they acted in good faith.Following mediation, the parties reached significant agreement regarding the terms of settlement. The mediation resulted in an oral agreement that included payment by the defendants of $2.3 million over 42 months, an initial $100,000 payment, dismissal and release of civil claims by the government, reasonable efforts by Dr. Ma to sell certain property, and the government’s right to place liens if obligations were not met. The United States filed a notice of settlement and submitted a written agreement containing additional standard terms. The defendants, later represented by new counsel, contested the validity of the settlement, arguing that the written agreement included material terms not discussed at mediation and that Dr. Ma had not authorized settlement above $1 million.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas held an evidentiary hearing, ultimately concluding that the parties had orally agreed to all material terms at mediation and that the additional terms in the written agreement were immaterial. The court amended its judgment to enforce only the material terms agreed orally. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion and affirmed. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing the oral settlement agreement, finding that all material terms were agreed to at mediation and that additional terms in the written agreement were not material. The court also found that the defendants had forfeited certain arguments on appeal. View "USA v. Ma" on Justia Law

A Barbados-based company acquired an 18 percent share in a Venezuelan oil company, alongside two state-owned shareholders. When dividends were distributed in 2008 and 2009, the state-owned entities received their share, but the Barbados-based company did not. In 2013, the company initiated arbitration proceedings against Venezuela in The Hague, seeking damages for not receiving its dividends. The arbitral tribunal, after a jurisdictional and merits phase, eventually awarded the company $59 million plus costs, fees, and interest. During the proceedings, a dispute arose about which government and legal counsel represented Venezuela, given the contested presidency between Nicolás Maduro and Juan Guaidó.The company sought to enforce the arbitration award in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Venezuela argued that enforcement would violate U.S. public policy by contradicting the U.S. President’s official recognition of the Guaidó government, as the tribunal had allowed the Maduro regime to change legal counsel during the arbitration. The district court rejected Venezuela’s argument, concluding that the President’s recognition power was not a cognizable public policy under the New York Convention, and even if it were, enforcement would not violate it. The court granted the company’s petition to enforce the award.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that none of the exceptions in the New York Convention, including the public policy exception, applied to prevent recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award. The court found that enforcing the award did not undermine the President’s exclusive recognition power or express any view on the legitimacy of either Venezuelan government, and thus did not violate fundamental U.S. public policy. View "Venezuela US SRL v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela" on Justia Law

A group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi, alleging misuse, misappropriation, and conflicts of interest related to an investment in Mockingbird Cannabis LLC, a medical marijuana manufacturer. The case was initially assigned to Judge Debra Gibbs. Before the defendants were served, one defendant, Millette, filed motions to compel arbitration, to dismiss the case, and to stay proceedings. The plaintiffs responded and also sought leave to file an amended complaint that expanded the number of parties and clarified their claims.Subsequently, without a hearing, a specially appointed judge, Barry Ford, granted the plaintiffs’ motion to amend. Millette questioned Judge Ford’s authority to act in the case, arguing that Ford’s appointment was limited to cases pending as of a prior administrative order dated February 21, 2024, and this case was filed after that date. Millette opposed the reassignment and sought appellate review, raising the issue of the judge’s authority to issue orders in this matter.The Supreme Court of Mississippi considered whether Judge Ford was properly authorized to act in the case. The Court examined the language of the appointment order and relevant statutory provisions, concluding that Judge Ford’s authority was limited to cases pending as of February 21, 2024, and did not extend to this case, which was filed later. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the actions taken by Judge Ford and remanded the case to proceed before the originally assigned circuit-court judge. The Court further held that remaining issues raised on appeal were moot in light of this disposition. View "Millette v. Burger" on Justia Law

A former seasonal employee of a package delivery company filed suit against her employer, alleging violations of California labor laws, including wage-related claims and a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claim. She had signed an arbitration agreement as a condition of employment, which included a class action waiver and a delegation clause assigning threshold arbitrability issues to an arbitrator. The agreement specified that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) would govern unless it did not apply, in which case state law would control. After her work schedule was repeatedly changed or canceled with little notice, she was not given further work despite her inquiries and subsequently initiated legal action on behalf of herself and proposed classes.After the case was removed from state court, the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted the employer’s motion to compel arbitration of the individual claims and stayed class claims. The district court declined to decide whether the FAA or the California Arbitration Act (CAA) governed the agreement, reasoning that the result would be the same under either statute. The court also denied the employee’s motion for clarification, maintaining that the question of which law applied and whether the FAA’s “contracts of employment” exclusion was relevant could be resolved by the arbitrator rather than the court.On mandamus review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the district court committed clear legal error by failing to determine whether the FAA or state law governed the arbitration agreement before compelling arbitration. The Ninth Circuit emphasized that, under New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, the court—not an arbitrator—must decide whether the FAA applies, including any statutory exclusions. The Ninth Circuit granted the writ of mandamus, directing the district court to vacate its prior order and to determine the statutory basis for its authority to compel arbitration before referring the parties to arbitration. View "ORR V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE" on Justia Law

An employee at a hotel was terminated after he displayed a knife in the workplace, prompting another employee to feel threatened. The worker’s union filed a grievance under the collective bargaining agreement, which specified that arbitration disputes would be resolved by an arbitrator chosen at random from a list of nine individuals. The union used a random selection website to designate an arbitrator, but the hotel objected, arguing the selected arbitrator was already handling another dispute between the parties and that the usual practice was to mutually agree on an arbitrator or strike names from the list.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, first ordered the hotel to proceed with arbitration using the contractually specified method. The arbitrator chosen by the union determined that the employee’s conduct warranted a suspension without pay but did not justify termination, ordering the employee’s reinstatement with back pay minus ten days’ wages. When the hotel refused to comply, the district court, upon the union’s motion, ordered the hotel to abide by the arbitrator’s ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the collective bargaining agreement’s method of selecting an arbitrator must be followed unless there was a demonstrable lapse in the process, which was not present here. The court also held that the arbitrator’s factual findings regarding the absence of workplace violence were binding and that Illinois public policy did not prohibit the remedy imposed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment confirming the arbitrator’s award, finding no error in either the selection of the arbitrator or the substance of his decision. View "Unite Here Local 1 v Magnificent Mile Hotel Management, LLC" on Justia Law

Several municipal court and deputy city marshals, represented by a police association, alleged that the City miscalculated their longevity pay, resulting in underpayment. The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the police association and the City required a four-step grievance process culminating in arbitration for disputes about the CBA’s application or interpretation. The marshals submitted grievances claiming underpayment since 2013. The City argued that these grievances were untimely, as they were filed years after the alleged underpayment was or should have been discovered, and insisted on a bifurcated arbitration process to resolve timeliness before addressing the merits of the longevity pay issue. Additional grievances were filed and rejected by the City as untimely.The police association filed two complaints in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, seeking declaratory relief: one to have the City pay alleged backpay and another to require the City to comply with the CBA’s arbitration provision and submit timeliness disputes to arbitration. The parties consolidated these actions, and the City moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion, accepting the City's interpretation that it could unilaterally reject grievances as untimely and dictate the arbitration format, and it ruled on the merits of the longevity pay dispute.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. It held that, unless a contract specifies otherwise, procedural questions such as timeliness and the format of arbitration are reserved for the arbitrator, not a party or the court. The City was not entitled to unilaterally decide the timeliness of grievances or require a bifurcated arbitration process. Further, since the longevity pay dispute was arbitrable, the district court should not have ruled on its merits. The Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case. View "LAS VEGAS POLICE PROTECTIVE ASSOC. VS. CITY OF LAS VEGAS" on Justia Law

Two neighbors in Bonner County, Idaho, own adjacent properties—one is lakefront and the other sits directly behind it without lake access. After years of disputes over easements relating to beach, lake, and parking access, the parties entered litigation. During trial, the district court mediated a settlement, which was read into the record and later formalized as a Stipulated Agreement and Order. This agreement outlined the parties’ rights to use the properties and set procedures for mediation and arbitration if further disputes arose.After signing the agreement and a minor modification by the district court, further conflicts emerged, especially regarding the construction and location of one party’s patio, use of a parking easement, a maintenance corridor, and a sprinkler system. Pursuant to the agreement, the unresolved issues were submitted to arbitration. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the lakefront property owner on all issues, finding that the other party had not complied with the agreement. The dissatisfied party then moved in the District Court of the First Judicial District to vacate the arbitration award, alleging bias and that the arbitrator had exceeded his authority. The district court denied the motion, finding the arbitrator had acted within the scope of his authority.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the district court’s denial. The Court held that the arbitrator’s decisions were within the authority granted by the parties’ agreement and the Idaho Uniform Arbitration Act. The Court found no evidence of bias and concluded the arbitrator had not rewritten or exceeded the terms of the agreement, but rather interpreted and applied it as authorized. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to vacate the arbitration award and granted attorney fees on appeal to the prevailing party under Idaho Code section 12-121. View "Khalsa v. Ridnour" on Justia Law