Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

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

Robert Toothman was initially employed by Apex Life Sciences, LLC, a temporary employment agency, which placed him at Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, Inc. During his employment with Apex, Toothman signed an arbitration agreement that required him to arbitrate employment disputes with Apex and its defined affiliates, subsidiaries, and parent companies. In April 2018, Toothman’s employment with Apex ended, after which he was hired directly by Redwood and worked there until June 2022. Toothman and Redwood did not sign an arbitration agreement. Several months after leaving Redwood, Toothman filed a class action alleging Labor Code violations based solely on his direct employment with Redwood, not his prior period as an Apex employee.The Sonoma County Superior Court reviewed Redwood’s motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the class claims. Redwood argued that it was either a party to the Apex arbitration agreement as an affiliate, a third-party beneficiary, or entitled to enforce the agreement under equitable estoppel. Redwood also claimed that Toothman’s class claims should be dismissed based on the arbitration agreement. The trial court denied Redwood’s motion, finding that Redwood was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement, was not an affiliate as defined by the agreement, and could not compel arbitration under any alternative theory.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the trial court’s order de novo. It held that Redwood was not a party to the arbitration agreement and did not qualify as an affiliate or third-party beneficiary. The court further determined that Toothman’s claims were not sufficiently intertwined with the arbitration agreement to justify equitable estoppel. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order denying Redwood’s motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the class claims. View "Toothman v. Redwood Toxicology Laboratory" on Justia Law

Roger Tejon subscribed to a video streaming service operated by Zeus Networks, LLC, through its online platform using an Apple device. To register, Tejon chose between an annual or monthly plan by clicking one of two large, red buttons on a “Choose your plan” page. Below these buttons, in small, gray text was a hyperlinked “Terms of Service,” which included a mandatory arbitration clause, but there was no requirement that Tejon click on this link to complete his subscription. Tejon later alleged that Zeus shared his viewing history and personally identifiable information with a social media company without his consent and sued Zeus for violating the Video Privacy Protection Act.Zeus moved to compel arbitration, arguing that Tejon had consented to the arbitration clause by signing up for an account. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied this motion. The district court found that the terms of service hyperlink was not conspicuous enough to put a reasonably prudent user on inquiry notice of the arbitration provision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial de novo. The Eleventh Circuit held that the design of Zeus’s subscription page did not provide sufficient inquiry notice of the arbitration agreement to bind Tejon. The court explained that the hyperlink to the terms was small, in gray font, and located beneath prominent action buttons, making it easy to overlook. The court further noted that the page did not explicitly state that clicking the subscription button would bind the user to arbitration. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration. View "Tejon v. Zeus Networks, LLC" on Justia Law

An employee worked as a railcar repairman for a company that performs inspections and repairs on freight cars at a train yard. He was hired with an agreement that required all employment-related disputes to be resolved through arbitration and included a waiver of class and representative actions, except for certain claims that cannot be waived by law. After his employment ended, the employee sued for various wage and hour violations under California law, asserting claims on his own behalf and on behalf of a proposed class of other employees.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the case after the employer moved to compel arbitration of the individual claims and to dismiss the class claims. The court ordered further proceedings to clarify whether the arbitration agreement was part of a contract of employment and whether the employee fell within a federal exemption for certain transportation workers. After additional evidence was submitted, the court granted the employer’s motion, compelling arbitration of individual claims and dismissing the class claims, finding the employee was not exempt from arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the order dismissing and striking the class claims. The court held that the FAA applied to the arbitration agreement because the employee was neither a “railroad employee” nor a transportation worker directly involved in the interstate transportation of goods under the FAA’s section 1 exemption. The court found that repairing out-of-service railcars did not constitute direct engagement in interstate commerce. The court also held that, because the FAA applied, the waiver of class claims was enforceable under federal law, thus preempting contrary state law. The appeal as to the order compelling arbitration was treated as a petition for writ of mandate and was denied. View "Vela v. Harbor Rail Services of California, Inc." on Justia Law

A group of consumers residing in California purchased products online from a national retailer’s website between 2020 and 2022. To complete their purchases, they were required to agree to the retailer’s Terms and Conditions, which included an arbitration clause mandating that any disputes be resolved through arbitration before the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and that certain pre-arbitration steps be followed. When the consumers later believed that the retailer had engaged in false and deceptive marketing, they followed the pre-arbitration process as outlined, served notices of dispute, attempted mediation, and, after those efforts failed, filed demands for arbitration with the AAA and paid all required fees.After the consumers initiated arbitration, the AAA notified the parties that the retailer had not filed its arbitration agreement with the AAA as required by AAA rules. The AAA requested compliance, but the retailer refused to register its agreement. As a result, the AAA, following its Consumer Arbitration Rules, terminated the arbitration proceedings and closed the consumers’ cases. The consumers then filed a petition in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin seeking to compel arbitration, arguing that the retailer’s refusal to register the agreement and pay related fees constituted a refusal to arbitrate under the Federal Arbitration Act.The district court denied the petition, relying on precedent which holds that, when arbitration proceeds and ends in accordance with the agreed rules—even if terminated by the arbitral forum for procedural reasons—a court may not intervene to compel further arbitration. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that because the parties’ agreement delegated procedural questions to the AAA and the AAA exercised its discretion under its rules in terminating the proceedings, there was no refusal to arbitrate that would justify judicial intervention under the Act. View "Bernal v Kohl's Corporation" on Justia Law

Two brothers, who are co-founders, directors, and major shareholders of a company, were involved in a business arrangement with a venture capital investor who was also a director and significant shareholder in the same company. The parties executed two option agreements and a partnership agreement related to the creation of a venture capital fund, which was to be capitalized with company shares. The brothers signed option agreements giving a corporate entity managed by the investor the right to acquire a portion of their shares. These agreements were twice amended, with the second amendment doubling the shares to be transferred—an action the brothers allege was done without their knowledge. Separately, a partnership agreement established the venture fund as a limited partnership under Delaware law, with all partners being corporate entities associated with the brothers and/or the investor. The partnership agreement included an arbitration clause governed by JAMS rules.When the investor’s entity tried to exercise its right to purchase shares, the brothers refused, disputing the validity of the second amendment. The investor and his entities initiated arbitration under the partnership agreement, prompting the brothers to sue for injunctions to stop arbitration. The defendants responded by moving to compel arbitration. The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied all motions, including the motion to compel arbitration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the denial de novo. It held that the district court properly decided the question of arbitrability because the brothers, as non-signatories to the partnership agreement, were not bound by its arbitration clause. The appellate court further found that principles of equitable estoppel and agency law under Delaware law did not require the brothers to arbitrate, as they had not directly benefited from the agreement nor acted as agents of the signatories. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. View "Schlacks v. Chheda" on Justia Law

A senior director was employed by a space exploration company from 2020 until his termination in 2022. Upon hiring, he signed an employee agreement containing a broad arbitration provision requiring most disputes with the company and its affiliates to be resolved by arbitration, with some exceptions. After his termination, the employee filed a lawsuit alleging, among other claims, sexual/gender discrimination, sexual/gender harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The company moved to compel arbitration under the agreement, while the employee argued that the arbitration provision was both unconscionable and unenforceable under federal law.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the motion and found that the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA) applied, concluding that the employee’s allegations sufficiently stated discrimination based on gender. On this basis, the court denied the company’s motion to compel arbitration, without reaching the issue of whether the arbitration agreement was unconscionable. The company filed a timely appeal from the denial of its motion.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the order de novo. The appellate court concluded that the arbitration agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Procedural unconscionability was established because the agreement was a contract of adhesion, presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis with no real opportunity for negotiation. Substantive unconscionability resulted from the agreement’s overbroad coverage, lack of mutuality, waiver of the right to a jury trial, and waiver of representative actions, including those under the Private Attorneys General Act. The court found that severance was not an appropriate remedy because the unconscionable provisions were pervasive and central to the agreement. The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration. View "Stoker v. Blue Origin, LLC" on Justia Law

An employee began working at a skilled nursing facility, which was later acquired by a new employer. As part of the onboarding process, the employer required the employee to sign three related agreements to arbitrate most employment disputes, except certain representative actions under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). After ending his employment, the employee filed a class action lawsuit for various wage-and-hour violations, including a PAGA claim. The agreements also contained class action waivers and a confidentiality agreement.The employer moved to compel arbitration of the employee’s individual claims, including his individual PAGA claim, and to enforce the class action waiver. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied the motion, ruling that conflicting and ambiguous terms among the three arbitration agreements and other documents meant there was no enforceable agreement to arbitrate. The court also ruled, in the alternative, that the agreement was unconscionable due to both procedural and substantive defects, including an unenforceable waiver of the right to bring a PAGA action and certain provisions in the confidentiality agreement.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the order denying arbitration. The court held that the agreements, although containing some ambiguities and minor inconsistencies, reflected a clear mutual intent to arbitrate employment-related disputes. The court found the agreements were not so uncertain as to be unenforceable, and any conflicting provisions could be severed. The court further determined that, while the agreements reflected some procedural unconscionability as contracts of adhesion, they did not contain substantively unconscionable terms. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order and directed that arbitration be compelled. View "Santana v. Studebaker Health Care Center" on Justia Law

A seaman who worked aboard a Cayman Islands-flagged yacht suffered a right shoulder injury while helping recover an underwater scooter at the direction of his captain. After the incident, the seaman alleged he was denied pain medication, reassigned to night shifts to hide his injury from guests, and eventually repatriated to his home country without his belongings. He sued the yacht’s beneficial owner, the captain, the vessel’s record owner, his nominal employer, the yacht’s manager, and the insurer, asserting various claims including negligence under the Jones Act, unseaworthiness, failure to provide maintenance and cure, failure to treat, negligence, conversion, and breach of insurance contract.The defendants (except the insurer) removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida under the New York Convention, citing an arbitration provision in the seaman’s employment agreement requiring disputes to be arbitrated in the Cayman Islands. The district court compelled arbitration as to the Jones Act, maintenance and cure, and failure to treat claims against the yacht owner, the beneficial owner, and the employer, but remanded the remaining claims to state court. The insurer later settled.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision compelling arbitration for the Jones Act, maintenance and cure, and failure to treat claims against the nominal employer, and for the maintenance and cure and failure to treat claims against the yacht owner and beneficial owner. However, it reversed the order to the extent it compelled arbitration of the Jones Act claim against the yacht owner and beneficial owner, finding insufficient allegations of concerted misconduct to warrant estoppel. The court dismissed the cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction as to the remanded claims. The main holding is that arbitration must be compelled for the relevant claims as to the nominal employer, and for maintenance and cure and failure to treat as to the yacht owner and beneficial owner, but not for the Jones Act claim against the latter two. View "Chemaly v. Lampert" on Justia Law

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