Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

This appeal concerned three commercial agreements entered into among family members regarding family-owned entities. New York residents executed each agreement, and each agreement contained a provision stating that disputes will be settled by arbitration pursuant to the rules of the American Arbitration Association (AAA). This action was commenced in New York County Supreme Court alleging fraud and malpractice against the family’s accountants. The court dismissed the complaint but gave Plaintiffs twenty days to replead certain causes of action with specificity. Plaintiffs subsequently added two family members as respondents and filed a demand for arbitration and a statement of claim with the AAA. Supreme Court granted Defendants’ motion to permanently stay certain claims asserted in the arbitration demand as time-barred and granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a stay pending arbitration to the extent of directing the parties to arbitrate the remaining non-time-barred claims, concluding that the AAA was inapplicable. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that the AAA applied to the agreements because each concerned transactions that affected commerce and that Plaintiffs did not waive the right to arbitration. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Plaintiffs waived the right to arbitration because of their blatant forum-shopping, and the issue of timeliness should be determined by the court. View "Cusimano v. Schnurr" on Justia Law

In 2000, plaintiff accepted the Gray law firm’s offer of employment as an associate attorney, including a provision requiring both parties to submit all disputes relating to the employment relationship to binding arbitration. In 2005, Gray merged into DLA Piper. In 2006, plaintiff signed a “Confidential Resignation Agreement and General Release of Claims.” DLA agreed to continue to provide insurance and other benefits until August 2006, when his employment would officially terminate. The Termination Agreement is silent concerning dispute resolution. Plaintiff later sued, alleging: breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; breach of contract; promissory fraud; and constructive fraud, arguing that the firm had “undervalued” his benefits by computing them based on “artificially reduced salary figures.” DLA sought to compel arbitration. Plaintiff asserted the Termination Agreement constituted a novation, extinguishing the arbitration provision, and that even if the provision had survived, claims involving the benefit plan were not subject to arbitration. The court compelled arbitration. In 2013, the arbitrator determined DLA had breached the Termination Agreement and plaintiff had suffered emotional distress, and awarded $41,000 in contract damages plus interest, $45,000 in emotional distress damages, and $7,535.67 in costs. The court of appeal affirmed confirmation of the award. View "Jenks v. DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary" on Justia Law

DIRECTV and its customers entered into service agreements that included a binding arbitration provision with a class-arbitration waiver. It specified that the entire arbitration provision was unenforceable if the “law of your state” made class-arbitration waivers unenforceable. The agreement also declared that the arbitration clause was governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 2. After California customers entered into the agreement, the Supreme Court held that California’s rule invalidating class-arbitration waivers was preempted by the Federal Act. When California customers sued, the trial court denied DIRECTV’s request to order the matter to arbitration. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, finding the entire arbitration provision unenforceable under the agreement because the parties were free to refer in the contract to California law as it would have been absent federal preemption. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed. The California court’s interpretation does not place arbitration contracts “on equal footing with all other contracts,” as required by the Act. California courts would not interpret contracts other than arbitration contracts the same way. The language the court used to frame the issue focused only on arbitration. View "DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia" on Justia Law

Uthe filed suit against defendants, alleging a conspiracy to unlawfully take over one of Uthe’s overseas subsidiaries. In its original federal court action, Uthe brought claims for, inter alia, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961–68, against both defendants and foreign defendants. A Singapore arbitration resulted in an award against the foreign defendants. Afterwards, Uthe reinstated the present action against defendants requesting relief under RICO's treble damages provision. The district court subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, holding that an award of additional damages under RICO would violate the "one satisfaction" rule. The court held, however, that Uthe is entitled to seek treble damages under RICO against defendants because the arbitral award did not constitute full satisfaction of Uthe's pre-existing RICO claim. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "UTHE Tech. Corp. v. Aetrium, Inc." on Justia Law

This case arose from a construction contract dispute between homeowners Ramon Romero and Cassie Romero and contractor Noel Madamba Contracting LLC (Madamba). The case proceeded to arbitration. Arbitrator Patrick K.S.L. Yim issued a partial final arbitration award concluding that Madamba breached the construction contract and that the Romeros were entitled to compensatory damages. Following the issuance of the partial final award, the parties learned that the law firm representing the Romeros throughout the arbitration had been retained by the administrator of Yim’s personal retirement accounts. Madamba moved to vacate the arbitration award based on this previously undisclosed information. The circuit court denied the motion, determining that Yim’s failure to disclose this information did not constitute evident partiality. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the judgments of the lower courts, holding that Yim’s failure to disclose his relationship with the Romeros’ counsel’s law firm constituted evident partiality requiring vacatur of the arbitration award. Remanded with instructions to vacate the arbitration award. View "Noel Madamba Contracting, LLC v. Romero" on Justia Law

Defendant Westlake Services LLC appealed a trial court order denying its motion to compel arbitration. Alfredo Ramos, and coplaintiffs (who are not parties to this appeal) sued Defendant Westlake Services LLC for causes of actions arising out of their purchase of used automobiles. Ramos alleged that negotiations for his purchase of a car were conducted primarily in Spanish. Defendant charged Ramos money for a “guaranteed auto protection” (GAP) contract to cover the vehicle he purchased. A copy of the GAP contract was not provided to him in Spanish. In exchange for the payment of a premium by the consumer and/or purchaser of the automobile, the ‘GAP’ insurance policy contract, which identifies the respective rights and liabilities of the parties to the contract, is purportedly intended to pay the difference between the actual cash value of the financed automobile and the then-current outstanding balance on the loan for the automobile should the financed automobile be destroyed or ‘totaled’ in an accident. Ramos asserted three causes of action based on Westlake’s failure to provide a translation of the GAP contract: (1) violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (2) violation of section 1632; and (3) violation of the unfair competition law (UCL). Westlake moved to compel arbitration of Ramos’s and his coplaintiffs’ claims, relying on the arbitration provisions contained in the underlying sales contracts they each had signed. Upon review, the Court of Appeal concluded that Ramos reasonably relied on a Spanish translation of the English contract that Pena Motors (as Westlake’s agent) provided him that did not include the arbitration. The Court concluded that mutual assent to the arbitration agreement was lacking, void and that the trial court correctly denied Westlake’s motion to compel arbitration. View "Ramos v. Westlake Services" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against defendant, asserting statutory violations arising from defendant unlawfully recording and/or monitoring her telephone conversations with defendant's representatives. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the trial court's order compelling arbitration of plaintiff's individual claims and dismissing her class claims. The court concluded that plaintiff's claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement and that the arbitration agreement is enforceable, with the exception of one provision that the court found to be unconscionable under the applicable jurisdiction's law. The court concluded that it is possible to sever the unconscionable provision from the remainder of the arbitration agreement and from the contract as a whole. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court's order compelling arbitration. However, the court reversed the portion of the trial court's order compelling the arbitration of plaintiff's individual claims and dismissing plaintiff's class claims because the parties' agreement delegates to the arbitrator the question whether class arbitration is available under the contract. View "Brinkley v. Monterey Fin. Serv." on Justia Law

The administrator of the Pearl River County Hospital entered into a contract with Wellness, Inc., for Wellness to provide furnishings, fixtures, equipment, and systems for the Hospital’s renovation. The Hospital subsequently sued Wellness (and other defendants not party to this appeal) alleging fraud, conspiracy, breach of contract, and other causes of action. Before trial commenced, Wellness moved to compel mediation and arbitration and to stay proceedings. After a hearing on the motion, the circuit court denied the motion in its entirety. Wellness appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Wellness, Inc. v. Pearl River County Hospital" on Justia Law

This appeal involved three different leases negotiated by Defendant between plaintiff-landowners and an oil and gas company. Each of the three leases engendered a different lawsuit against Defendant. In each case, Plaintiffs claimed that the nature of the services provided by Defendant constituted the unauthorized practice of law. Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ lawsuits and sought to compel Plaintiffs to participate in arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause in each lease. Plaintiffs challenged the arbitration clauses as void on the grounds that the arbitration clauses were contrary to public policy because they were procured through the unauthorized practice of law. In all three suits, the circuit court concluded that a plaintiff’s claim that a defendant engaged in the unauthorized practice of law can never, as a matter of matter of state law, be referred to arbitration. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that any state-based rule that prohibits outright the arbitration of a particular type of claim is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. View "Geological Assessment & Leasing v. O'Hara" on Justia Law

The complex issues at issue in these three consolidated appeals revolved around four overlapping leases to extract oil and gas from land owned by Plaintiff. Each lease contained an arbitration clause. Plaintiff filed the instant case against Defendants seeking a declaration as to which lease was controlling as to which defendants and seeking damages from Defendants. The circuit court entered an order voiding two of the four leases, addressing the substantive terms of two other leases, and compelling the parties to arbitrate any remaining claims by Plaintiff. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the circuit court (1) properly found the arbitration clause in one lease to be unenforceable and correctly ruled that the entire lease was unenforceable; (2) erred in compelling certain defendants to participate in arbitration under the terms of a second lease but did not err when it made findings of fact and conclusions of law that addressed the substance of Plaintiff’s claims regarding that lease; (3) erred in voiding a third lease, and its included arbitration clause, in violation the doctrine of severability; and (4) erred in its substantive rulings interpreting a fourth lease, as the court should have referred questions about the lease to arbitration. View "Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC v. Hickman" on Justia Law