Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order denying defendants' petition to compel arbitration of plaintiff's Ralph Act and Bane Act claims. The court held that the parties did not incorporate preempted state law into the arbitration agreement. The court also held that the Ralph Act and the Bane Act were preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act to the extent they conditioned the enforceability of arbitration agreements on compliance with special requirements not applicable to contracts generally. View "Saheli v. White Memorial Medical Center" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the superior court that confirmed an arbitration award in favor of Plaintiff and a corresponding judgment of the superior court in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $72,415, plus statutory interest in the amount of $7,086.24.The parties in this case entered into a contract for the construction of a restaurant. When a dispute arose, the parties proceeded to arbitration. The arbitrator awarded $72,415 to Plaintiff, plus $7,086.24 in interest. The superior court confirmed the arbitration award and entered judgment accordingly. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that none of the conditions pursuant to which an arbitration award must be vacated were present in this case. View "ABC Building Corp. v. Ropolo Family, LLC" on Justia Law

Merritt Charles Horning III; Riggers Store Holdings, LLC; Riggers Store 1, LLC; Chase Merritt Management, Inc.; Chase Merritt, LP; and Racers Store Management, LLC (collectively the "Horning defendants") appealed a district court order denying their motion to compel arbitration of Raymond Melendez's lawsuit against them. The issues in this appeal centered on whether Melendez's claims against the Horning defendants concerning the operation of a convenience store in Williston were arbitrable under an arbitration clause in an operating agreement for Riggers Store Holdings. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in deciding Melendez's claims were not arbitrable, and reversed the order denying arbitration and remanded for entry of an order compelling arbitration. View "Melendez v. Horning III" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court's denial of Credit One's motion to compel arbitration on the basis of a clause in the cardholder agreement between Credit One and debtor. The court held that debtor's claim was not arbitrable because the dispute concerned a core bankruptcy proceeding and arbitrating the matter would present an inherent conflict with the goals of the Bankruptcy Code. In this case, the successful discharge of debt was not merely important to the Bankruptcy Code, it was its principal goal. The court explained that an attempt to coerce debtors to pay a discharged debt was thus an attempt to undo the effect of the discharge order and the bankruptcy proceeding itself. View "In re Orrin S. Anderson" on Justia Law

Employees of Wells Fargo filed putative class arbitrations before the American Arbitration Association, seeking unpaid overtime from Wells Fargo. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Wells Fargo's petitions seeking to compel bilateral, rather than class, arbitration. The court assumed without deciding that the question whether an arbitration clause authorized class arbitration was a so-called "question of arbitrability" presumptively for a court, rather than an arbitrator, to decide. Therefore, applying Missouri's arbitration and contract law, the court held that the parties overcame this presumption by clearly and unmistakably expressing their intent to let an arbitrator decide whether they agreed to authorize class arbitration. View "Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC v. Sappington" on Justia Law

A party waives any right to object to the validity of an arbitration provision calling for the arbitration of certain claims once that party agrees to arbitrate those claims. Here, the parties settled the claims made the basis of case no. CV-2015-900849 by agreeing to arbitrate any further disputes regarding alleged violations of the Hillwood Office Center Owners' Association, Inc.’s ("the HOCOA"), governing documents. Following the dismissal of case no. CV-2015- 900849, Carol Blevins continued to assert violations of the governing documents and made a demand for arbitration. The HOCOA and its board members agreed to the submission of Carol's claims to arbitration. Although the HOCOA and its board members did object to certain issues being submitted to the arbitrator for determination, arguing that those issues instead should be determined by the trial court, they did not object to the submission of the claims to arbitration. The HOCOA and its board members agreed upon two different arbitrators and also sought the enforcement of the settlement agreement containing the arbitration provision by initiating case no. CV-2015- 901891. Accordingly, The Alabama Supreme Court concluded that because the HOCOA and its board members agreed to the submission of the claims raised in this matter to the now pending arbitration proceeding, they waived their right to object to the validity of the arbitration provision. The appeal in case no. CV-2015-900849 was dismissed. To the extent that the HOCOA and its board members appealed the trial court's order dissolving the stay of arbitration in case no. CV-2015-901891, that order was affirmed. Finally, the order appealed from case no. CV-2016- 901627 was affirmed in part and reversed in part and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Hillwood Office Center Owners' Association, Inc., et al. v. Blevins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration, although for different reasons than those of the district court.In denying the motion to compel arbitration, the district court concluded that the agreement to arbitrate concerned or related to an insurance policy and was thus unenforceable under Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-2602.01(f)(4). On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court erred in denying the motion to compel arbitration and in determining that arbitration agreement concerned or related to an insurance policy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was a failure of proof regarding the arbitration itself because the record did not show that the relevant parties agreed to submit future disputes to binding arbitration. View "Zweiback Family L.P. v. Lincoln Benefit Life Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the superior court denying Plaintiff’s petition to vacate an arbitration award, granting Defendant’s petition to confirm the arbitration award, and granting Defendant’s motion to quash the deposition subpoena of the dissenting arbitrator, holding that the hearing justice’s rulings were proper.Plaintiff, an employee of the Providence Water Supply Board (PWSB), was operating a PWSB-owned vehicle when he was injured in an accident. Plaintiff sought underinsured motorist coverage through an insurance policy issued by Defendant-insurer to PWSB. The policy contained an arbitration provision. A majority of a panel of three arbitrators issued a decision finding in favor of Defendant, and one arbitrator dissented from the decision. A hearing justice found that majority’s decision to be “rational and logical” and deemed Plaintiff’s subpoena seeking to depose the dissenting arbitrator to be unnecessary. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the hearing justice appropriately denied Plaintiff’s petition to vacate the arbitration award; and (2) the issue of whether the hearing justice properly quashed the deposition subpoena of the dissenting arbitrator was waived. View "DiSano v. Argonaut Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the superior court denying Plaintiff’s petition to vacate an arbitration award, granting Defendant’s petition to confirm the arbitration award, and granting Defendant’s motion to quash the deposition subpoena of the dissenting arbitrator, holding that the hearing justice’s rulings were proper.Plaintiff, an employee of the Providence Water Supply Board (PWSB), was operating a PWSB-owned vehicle when he was injured in an accident. Plaintiff sought underinsured motorist coverage through an insurance policy issued by Defendant-insurer to PWSB. The policy contained an arbitration provision. A majority of a panel of three arbitrators issued a decision finding in favor of Defendant, and one arbitrator dissented from the decision. A hearing justice found that majority’s decision to be “rational and logical” and deemed Plaintiff’s subpoena seeking to depose the dissenting arbitrator to be unnecessary. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the hearing justice appropriately denied Plaintiff’s petition to vacate the arbitration award; and (2) the issue of whether the hearing justice properly quashed the deposition subpoena of the dissenting arbitrator was waived. View "DiSano v. Argonaut Insurance Co." on Justia Law

After paying a total of $15,493.00 on his $5,000 loan, MacDonald filed a putative class action concerning the loan agreement. He cited RICO and New Jersey state usury and consumer laws, arguing that the agreement is usurious and unconscionable for containing a provision requiring that all disputes be resolved through arbitration conducted by a representative of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (CRST) and a clause that delegates questions about the arbitration provision’s enforceability to the arbitrator. No CRST arbitral forum exists. The agreement also purported to waive all of the borrower’s state and federal statutory rights. The district court denied a motion to compel arbitration. The Third Circuit affirmed, concluding that the agreement directs arbitration to an illusory forum without a provision for an alternative forum, and the forum selection clause is not severable, so that the entire agreement to arbitrate, including the delegation clause, is unenforceable. View "MacDonald v. Cashcall Inc." on Justia Law