Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

In June 2020, an individual purchased a recreational vehicle manufactured by two companies. The vehicle quickly developed problems, prompting the owner to seek repairs on multiple occasions and to notify the manufacturers of ongoing defects. Over the course of about two years, the vehicle underwent several repair attempts by both manufacturers and their authorized agents. After further repair offers were declined by the owner, statutory defect notices were sent, and additional repairs were made. The owner eventually sought relief under Florida’s Lemon Law, alleging that the manufacturers failed to adequately repair the defects.The dispute was submitted to arbitration pursuant to Florida Statute § 681.1095. The arbitration board concluded that the owner did not meet the burden of eligibility for a refund under the Lemon Law and only ordered limited repairs. The owner then appealed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. That court granted summary judgment for both manufacturers, holding that the owner failed to establish entitlement to relief because the statutory presumptions for repairs or days out-of-service were not met, and deemed as admitted the manufacturers’ statements of material facts due to procedural deficiencies in the owner’s filings.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found that the district court erred by treating the statutory presumptions in Florida’s Lemon Law as mandatory requirements for relief. The court clarified that these presumptions are not prerequisites but rather examples of when a “reasonable number of attempts” has been made. Applying the correct standard, the appellate court affirmed summary judgment for one manufacturer because the owner failed to satisfy initial notice and repair requirements. However, as to the other manufacturer, it found genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether a reasonable number of attempts had been made and therefore reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Joyce v. Forest River, Inc." on Justia Law

Pamela Whalen was injured when she tripped over a utility box in a community owned and maintained by Lennar Communities Nevada, LLC, and Greystone Nevada, LLC. Before the accident, Pamela had signed an amendment to a Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) to buy a home from Lennar, which included an arbitration clause. The injury occurred during a tour of the community, not on the property she purchased. Following the accident, Pamela sued Lennar for negligence.After Pamela filed her complaint, Lennar responded with an answer and demanded a jury trial. Both parties engaged in extensive discovery over 17 months, including multiple disclosures, written discovery, and three medical examinations of Pamela at Lennar’s request. Lennar did not assert its right to arbitrate until after this lengthy discovery process. When Pamela declined to stipulate to arbitration, Lennar filed a motion to compel arbitration based on the PSA. The Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, denied Lennar’s motion, determining that the dispute fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reviewed the case. The court held that the district court erred in interpreting the scope of the arbitration clause, as the PSA delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. However, the Supreme Court held that Lennar had waived its right to arbitrate by actively litigating the case for 17 months before seeking arbitration. The court found this conduct inconsistent with the right to arbitrate and prejudicial to Pamela, especially given the discovery obtained that might not have been available in arbitration. The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration, albeit on the grounds of waiver rather than contract interpretation. View "LENNAR COMM. NEV., LLC VS. WHALEN" on Justia Law

Rashaan Carter brought a lawsuit against SP Plus Corporation, his employer, alleging violations of state and federal minimum wage laws. During Carter’s onboarding, the employer claimed that he had agreed to arbitrate all claims by electronically checking a box and providing an electronic signature. However, Carter later submitted an affidavit stating that an employee from SP Plus’s human resources staff completed and signed the forms on his behalf, without explaining the documents or allowing Carter to view or decline them.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois initially granted SP Plus's motion to stay the litigation in favor of arbitration, relying on the onboarding records. After Carter presented his affidavit challenging the validity of his assent to arbitration, the district judge reconsidered, lifted the stay, and denied SP Plus’s motion. The district court explained that, based on the record, it could not find that a valid arbitration agreement had been formed. The judge also noted that neither party had been given the required notice or an opportunity for a hearing to determine whether Carter had personally agreed to arbitration.SP Plus appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, arguing that the order was appealable and that the district court should have compelled arbitration. The Seventh Circuit held that, because SP Plus failed to request an evidentiary hearing or present evidence to dispute Carter’s affidavit in the district court, it forfeited any right to such a hearing. The appellate court further concluded that the district court’s order was a final denial of the request to compel arbitration and found no clear error in the district court’s determination that Carter did not agree to arbitrate. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. View "Carter v SP Plus Corp." on Justia Law

A group of former employees initiated a mass arbitration against their previous employers, alleging violations of the Virginia Wage Payment Act and, for one claimant, the Fair Labor Standards Act. The employers contended that not all claimants were bound by arbitration agreements and that procedural requirements for arbitration had not been met, leading them to refuse payment of required arbitration initiation fees. In response, the employers filed suit in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, seeking to enjoin the arbitrations and obtain a declaratory judgment on the arbitration agreements’ scope. The employees removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, where they also filed a petition to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied the employers’ request to enjoin the arbitrations and granted a stay of the court proceedings pending arbitration. The district court did not compel arbitration outright, reasoning that the matters had already been referred to arbitration. When the employers continued to refuse payment of arbitration fees, the employees returned to the district court seeking an order to lift the stay, compel arbitration, and require the employers to pay the fees. The court again declined, maintaining its previous order referring the case to arbitration and keeping the stay in place.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the employees’ interlocutory appeal challenging the district court’s denial of their renewed motion. The Fourth Circuit held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction under section 16 of the Federal Arbitration Act because the district court’s order was either an order granting a stay pending arbitration or directing arbitration to proceed—neither of which is appealable at this stage. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. View "Geneva Enterprises, LLC v. Chavez" on Justia Law

A union member employed by a county juvenile justice agency was terminated after it was discovered that he had failed to disclose instances of prior disciplinary actions related to his behavior with residents at a previous job in another county. During a background check required by the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), the county learned that the employee had misrepresented the circumstances of his departure from his earlier position, specifically omitting that he resigned while under investigation for inappropriate conduct. Based on PREA regulations, which mandate termination for material omissions regarding such misconduct, the county dismissed the employee.Following his termination, the union initiated a grievance on his behalf under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the county, which allows for arbitration of certain employment disputes. When the county denied the grievance, the union sought arbitration. The county then moved in the Eighth Judicial District Court to stay arbitration, arguing that terminations pursuant to PREA regulations were not subject to arbitration under the CBA. The district court agreed, determining that the arbitration clause was narrow and applied only to disciplinary actions defined as “corrective actions” intended to help an employee overcome deficiencies related to behavior or performance, not to terminations required by federal regulation.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the matter and affirmed the district court’s order granting the motion to stay arbitration. The court held that the arbitration clause in the CBA was narrow and could not be interpreted to cover the termination at issue, as the action was implemented pursuant to federal regulation, not as a corrective measure for employee improvement. The Supreme Court of Nevada did not address the merits of the termination, only its arbitrability under the CBA. View "JUVENILE JUSTICE PROB. OFFICERS ASSOC. VS. CLARK CNTY." on Justia Law

The plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with a car dealership to lease a Jeep Grand Cherokee. The lease included an arbitration agreement containing a delegation clause, which specified that disputes about the scope of the arbitration agreement would be decided in arbitration. Later, the plaintiff filed a federal class action lawsuit against the vehicle’s manufacturer, alleging defects in the headrest. The manufacturer, however, was not a party to the lease agreement and did not claim to be an employee, agent, successor, or assign of the dealership.After the lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, the manufacturer moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the delegation clause required an arbitrator—not the court—to decide whether the manufacturer could enforce the arbitration agreement. In the alternative, the manufacturer asserted that either the plain language of the agreement or the doctrine of equitable estoppel entitled it to compel arbitration. The district court denied the motion, finding that the manufacturer could not enforce the arbitration agreement because it was not a party to the contract and none of the exceptions allowing enforcement by a non-signatory applied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration. The appellate court held that, absent a relevant exception, a non-party to an arbitration agreement cannot enforce the agreement’s terms against a signatory. It found that the language of the arbitration agreement did not cover disputes with the manufacturer, and under California law, the manufacturer could not use equitable estoppel to compel arbitration because the plaintiff’s claims were not founded in or intertwined with the lease agreement. The court’s disposition was to affirm the district court’s order. View "OLSON V. FCA US, LLC" on Justia Law

A Canadian investment company provided loans to Mexican companies owned by a businessman, securing these loans with mortgages and promissory notes. When the Mexican companies defaulted, the investor attempted to recover its funds through negotiations and litigation in Mexico. The investor alleged that a fraudulent scheme, orchestrated by the businessman, led to a forged settlement used in Mexican court to void the loans. After Mexican courts did not provide relief, the investor initiated arbitration against Mexico under NAFTA, claiming Mexico failed to provide the protections required for foreign investments.The arbitral tribunal, seated in Washington, D.C., found that only the mortgages—not the promissory notes—qualified as protected “investments” under NAFTA. The tribunal concluded that Mexico had breached its obligations under Article 1105(1) by failing to provide fair and equitable treatment to the investor’s qualifying investments, awarding $47 million in compensation to the investor. Mexico then petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to vacate the award, arguing the arbitrators exceeded their authority and disregarded the law. The district court rejected these arguments, confirming the award. Separately, the businessman sought to intervene in the proceedings, claiming his interests were harmed, but the district court denied intervention.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the arbitral tribunal did not exceed its powers, as it at least arguably interpreted the relevant treaty provisions, and did not act in manifest disregard of the law. The appellate court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the businessman’s motion to intervene, finding Mexico adequately represented his interests. The court affirmed the district court’s order in full. View "United Mexican States v. Lion Mexico Consolidated L.P." on Justia Law

Former employees of a travel-nursing agency brought a putative class action against the agency, alleging wage-related violations. Each employee had signed an arbitration agreement with the agency that contained a delegation clause requiring an arbitrator—not a court—to decide on the validity of the agreement. Four initial plaintiffs had their disputes sent to arbitration: two arbitrators found the agreements valid, while two found them invalid due to unconscionable fee and venue provisions.After these initial arbitrations, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California confirmed three out of four arbitral awards. At this stage, an additional 255 employees joined the action as opt-in plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The agency moved to compel arbitration for these additional plaintiffs under their individual agreements. However, a different district judge raised the issue of whether non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel barred the enforcement of the arbitration agreements. After briefing, the district court denied the agency’s motion, concluding that the two arbitral awards finding the agreements invalid precluded arbitration for all 255 employees, effectively rendering their agreements unenforceable.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that the application of non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel to preclude the enforcement of arbitration agreements is incompatible with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The court reasoned that such an approach undermined the principle of individualized arbitration and the parties’ consent, which are fundamental to the FAA. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the FAA does not permit using non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel to invalidate arbitration agreements and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "O'DELL V. AYA HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC." on Justia Law

Two Illinois residents obtained online loans of $600 each from a lender operating under the laws of the Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, with interest rates approaching 500% per year. The loan agreements included an arbitration clause, which delegated to the arbitrator all questions including the enforceability and formation of the agreement, specifying that such issues would be determined under “tribal law and applicable federal law.” At the time the loans were issued, the referenced tribal law did not exist.After receiving the loans, the borrowers filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of Illinois consumer-protection statutes and federal laws. The defendants moved to compel arbitration under the terms of the loan agreements. The district court denied the motion, finding that the arbitration and delegation provisions were unenforceable because they effectively forced the plaintiffs to waive their substantive rights under Illinois law, applying the “prospective waiver” doctrine.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial de novo. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no mutual assent to the arbitration and delegation provisions. The court determined that, at the time of contracting, the specified tribal law did not exist, and federal law does not supply substantive contract-formation rules. Because the contract’s governing law provision referred to a body of law that was nonexistent and subject to unilateral creation by the defendants’ affiliate, there was no meeting of the minds as to an essential term. The Seventh Circuit concluded that the absence of mutual assent rendered the arbitration and delegation provisions unenforceable and affirmed the district court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration. View "Harris v W6LS, Inc." on Justia Law

Mitchell Glenn Revette sought medical care from Dr. Andrew Mallette at The Surgical Clinic Associates, P.A. for abdominal pain and underwent surgery for diverticulitis in June 2021. He later returned for a follow-up surgery in January 2022, after which he died due to complications related to respiratory depression. His wife, Nitkia Revette, brought a wrongful death and medical negligence lawsuit on behalf of his estate, alleging that negligent anesthesia and pain management led to his death.The defendants, Dr. Mallette and the Clinic, moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement included in an intake packet mailed to Mitchell. The agreement was signed "Mitchell Revette," but during a hearing in the Hinds County Circuit Court, Nitkia testified that she signed her husband’s name without his knowledge or presence, and she stated she had no authority to sign for him. The Clinic’s staff testified that patients were required to sign such agreements personally. The circuit court found that Mitchell did not sign the arbitration agreement and that Nitkia lacked authority to bind him, thus ruling the agreement unenforceable and denying the motion to compel arbitration.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the circuit court’s findings, applying a deferential standard to factual determinations and de novo review to the denial of arbitration. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s decision, holding that substantial evidence supported the findings that Nitkia lacked both actual and apparent authority to sign for Mitchell and that there was no basis for binding the estate via direct-benefits estoppel. The case was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. View "Mallette v. Revette" on Justia Law