Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

BNSF filed suit against Alstom, seeking declaratory relief based on a Maintenance Agreement between the parties. The district court compelled arbitration based on an arbitration agreement in the Agreement. On appeal, Alstom challenged the district court's decision partially vacating the arbitration panel's final award in Alstom's favor. The court found that BNSF failed to show that the arbitration panel could not have been interpreting the Agreement when it concluded that Illinois law imposes a limitation on the right to terminate "without cause" based on the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Further, errors in interpreting a contract is not grounds for setting aside an arbitrator's award. In this case, the arbitrators arguably interpreted the Agreement in reaching their award and in calculating Alstom's remedy. The court vacated the district court's decision and remanded for further proceedings, with instructions to reinstate the arbitration panel's final award. View "BNSF Railway v. Alstom Transportation" on Justia Law

Before it was acquired by DirecTV, 180 Connect entered into an employment arbitration agreement with Marenco, which prohibited filing a class or collective action, or a representative or private attorney general action. After acquiring 180 Connect, DirecTV retained employees, including Marenco. Marenco later filed suit, alleging that DirecTV had issued debit cards in payment of wages to a putative class of employees. Plaintiffs who used their cards to withdraw cash at ATM machines were required to pay an activation fee and a cash withdrawal fee, resulting in DirecTV’s failure to pay plaintiffs’ full wages in violation of the Unfair Competition Law and Labor Code 212. DirecTV moved to compel arbitration of Marenco’s individual claims, and stay the class claims. Marenco argued that DirecTV lacked standing to enforce the agreement and that the agreement was unconscionable and unenforceable under California law. The U.S. Supreme Court then issued its 2011 decision, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts the California rule of unconscionability. The trial court ordered arbitration of Marenco’s individual claims, holding that DirecTV had standing; the class action waiver is not unconscionable; and prohibition of representative actions does not violate the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 157). The court of appeal affirmed. View "Marenco v. DirecTV, LLC" on Justia Law

When Ameriprise Financial fired Renard, a financial adviser, for violation of the franchise agreement between the two, Ameriprise claimed that Renard owed it $530,000 on loans made to help Renard build his franchise. Renard disagreed. Ameriprise initiated arbitration under the agreement, which provides that Minnesota law governs, except “all issues relating to arbitrability,” are “governed by the terms set forth in [the] agreement, and to the extent not inconsistent with this agreement, by the rules of arbitration of” the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Wisconsin arbitrators rejected Renard’s counterclaims and awarded Ameriprise most of what it sought. Renard filed suit to vacate the award. The court confirmed the award and required Renard to pay additional interest. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting Renard’s argument that Ameriprise’s counsel procured the award through fraud and that the arbitrators acted in manifest disregard of the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law and Minnesota tort law. His showing was far short of the high standard needed to upset the outcome of an arbitral proceeding. The panel did not issue a written opinion, so it was not clear how it reached its conclusions, but nothing suggested that it strayed so far that the “manifest disregard” standard was triggered. View "Renard v. Ameriprise Fin. Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

Harold Stewart, a sergeant in Camden County's Fire Police Department, while operating a Camden County vehicle, was involved in a motor vehicle accident with plaintiff Joseph Vanderslice. Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants Camden County, the Camden County Fire Police Department, and Stewart, alleging personal injuries sustained as a result of the accident. The case was referred to mandatory, non-binding arbitration, as required by our court rules. An arbitration panel determined that defendants were 100% liable for plaintiff s injuries, and awarded $145,970 for noneconomic damages and lost wages. The next day, defendants submitted the required demand forms to the Camden County Arbitration Administrator. Attached to defendants demand was a payment voucher that gave the recipient the right to draw upon Camden County s account with the State Treasury. The Arbitration Administrator signed the voucher and sent it to the State Treasurer for payment. The Treasurer issued a check thirty days after the arbitration award was filed. Thirty-two days after the award, the Arbitration Administrator received the check. However, because the Arbitration Administrator concluded that the check was not received within thirty days of the arbitration award as required by Rule4:21A-6(b)(1), the clerk did not file the demand or deposit the check. Although Rule1:5-6(c)(1)(A) required the clerk to notify defendants of their error, neither the clerk nor the Arbitration Administrator informed defendants of their nonconforming payment. Rather, defendants were alerted that the demand had not been filed when plaintiff moved to confirm the arbitration award and enter judgment. Defendants opposed the motion and asked the trial court to permit a late filing. Concluding that defendants had substantially complied with the court rules, the court permitted the late filing and rejected plaintiff s motion to confirm the award and enter judgment. The case proceeded to trial and the jury returned a verdict of no cause of action in favor of defendants. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial court should not have permitted defendants late filing, and that the arbitration award should have been confirmed and judgment entered for plaintiff. In an unpublished decision, the Appellate Division determined that defendants demand was filed too late, reversed the trial court, and remanded the matter for entry of an order confirming the arbitration award and entering judgment in plaintiff's favor. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded defendants demand was not filed out of time. The Appellate Division's judgment was reversed and the jury's verdict was reinstated. Because the Court found that defendants notice was timely, it did not reach the issue of the standard for expanding the thirty-day time limit under Rule4:21A-6(b)(1). View "Vanderslice v. Stewart" on Justia Law

An Employee was terminated for engaging in outside employment in violation of company policy during his absence on approved medical leave. The Employee sued, arguing that the Employer violated his right to reinstatement under the Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act (CFRA) and the federal Family and Medical Leave Act. The trial court granted the Employer’s motion to compel arbitration. The arbitrator relied on the federal “honest belief” defense and rejected Plaintiff’s contentions. The Court of Appeals vacated the award in the Employer’s favor, concluding that the arbitrator violated Plaintiff’s right to reinstatement under the CFRA when he applied the honest belief defense to Plaintiff’s claim. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, although the arbitrator may have committed error in adopting the honest belief defense, any error did not deprive the Employee of an unwaivable statutory right because the arbitrator relied on the substantial evidence that the Employee violated his Employer’s written policy prohibiting outside employment while he was on medical leave. View "Richey v. Autonation, Inc." on Justia Law

Property owner Crescent City Property Partners, L.L.C., and a builder, Greystar Development and Construction, LP, entered into a contract in March, 2002 for the construction of a mixed-use development in Lafayette. Alleging defects in the builder's performance, and pursuant to the arbitration clause in the construction contract, Crescent filed an arbitration claim against Greystar in 2008, also naming as a defendant Greystar's surety, American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company. In response, Greystar filed a third party demand against various subcontractors. The Supreme Court granted writs in consolidated cases to consider whether the court of appeal correctly vacated the arbitration award, which had been confirmed by the district court. The court of appeal vacated the award on the basis the arbitration panel, in applying a statute of peremption incorrectly, disturbed a vested right of the plaintiff and, thus, the panel violated the plaintiff's due process rights. The court of appeal found the arbitration panel's interpretation of the law placed an impossible burden on the plaintiff, a burden the panel deemed fundamentally unfair, thereby requiring vacatur of the arbitration panel's award. After its review, the Supreme Court found that the court of appeal essentially misinterpreted the laws concerning arbitration, and, thus, erred in failing to limit its review to the factors mandating vacatur articulated in La. Rev. Stat. 9:4210. In reversing the court of appeal's decision, the Court reiterated well-settled law that otherwise fairly and honestly obtained arbitration awards may not be overturned merely for errors of fact or law. View "Crescent Property Partners, LLC v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Based on an agreement, an oilfield operator was authorized to charge certain costs against revenues prior to paying the oilfield owners. After a dispute arose, an auditor examined the oilfield operator's costs charged to the oilfield owners and found approximately $1 million as being unsubstantiated and, therefore, impermissibly charged to the owners by the operator. The arbitrator reached a different conclusion regarding what charges were permissible and awarded the owners approximately $1.6 million. Satisfied with the arbitrator's decision, the oilfield brought an action in the district court to confirm the award. The oilfield operator, however, moved to vacate the award. The operator argued that the arbitrator improperly considered certain employment documents and that the arbitration was limited in scope by the auditor's findings of the unsubstantiated charges. The district court confirmed the award and denied the operator's motion. The court of appeal affirmed, with one judge dissenting. The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review as whether an accountant, serving as an arbitrator, exceeded his arbitral authority. Finding that the arbitrator acted pursuant to the authority lawfully and contractually vested in him by the parties, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Mack Energy Co. v. Expert Oil & Gas, LLC" on Justia Law

Ironwood Country Club appealed an order that denied its motion to compel arbitration of the declaratory relief action brought by plaintiffs William S. Cobb, Jr., and Elizabeth Richards, who were former members of Ironwood, and Patrick J. Keeley and Helen Riedstra, who were then-current members. The motion to compel was based on an arbitration provision Ironwood incorporated into its bylaws four months after plaintiffs' complaint was filed. In 1999, the Club entered into an agreement with each of its 588 members, whereby each member loaned the club $25,500 to fund the Club's purchase of additional land. The members were given the option of paying the funds in a lump sum or by making payments over a period of 20 years into a "Land Purchase Account." In connection with the loans, the Club represented that if any member sold his or her membership before the loan was repaid, the Club would be "absolutely obligated to pay the Selling Member the entire amount then standing in the Member's Land Purchase Account." Moreover, any new member would be required to pay, in addition to the regular initiation fee, an amount equal to the hypothetical balance in a Land Purchase Account, as well as the "remaining unamortized portion of the Land Purchase Assessment." In reliance on the Club's representations, the members voted to approve the land purchase and enter into the loan agreements. Three of the plaintiffs paid the lump sum, and one plaintiff elected to make monthly payments into a Land Purchase Account. In April 2012, Ironwood represented that it had repaid the $25,500 Land Purchase Assessment to 10 resigned members whose memberships were subsequently purchased by new members, since 2003. However, plaintiffs alleged that despite the Club's initial description of how the funds would be generated to reimburse resigning members, it "inexplicably failed" to require new members to pay the equivalent of the Land Purchase Assessment when they joined. The trial court held that Ironwood's subsequent amendment of its bylaws was insufficient to demonstrate that any of these plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate this dispute, and that if Ironwood's basic premise were accepted, it would render the agreement illusory. Ironwood argued: (1) that its new arbitration provision was fully applicable to this previously filed lawsuit because the lawsuit concerned a dispute which was "ongoing" between the parties; and (2) that its right to amend its bylaws meant that any such amendment would be binding on both current and former members. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court's conclusions, and affirmed the order. View "Cobb v. Ironwood Country Club" on Justia Law

Petitioners, purchasers of luxury condominium units, seek a writ of mandamus directing the district court to vacate its grant of a motion, while arbitration was pending, to disqualify an arbitrator for evident partiality under 9 U.S.C. 10(a)(2). The court determined that it had jurisdiction under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651. In determining whether a petitioner has carried the burden of establishing a "clear and indisputable" right to issuance of the writ, the court examined the five factors set out in Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court: (1) the party seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such as a direct appeal, to attain the relief he or she desires; (2) the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way not correctable on appeal; (3) the district court’s order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; (4) the district court’s order is an oft-repeated error, or manifests a persistent disregard of the federal rules; and (5) the district court’s order raises new and important problems, or issues of law of first impression.The court concluded that the third and fifth Bauman factors, along with the first and second Bauman factors to a lesser extent, weigh in favor of granting the petition for mandamus. In this case, the district court's ruling was clearly erroneous as to the legal standard for "evident partiality" and the nature of the equitable concerns sufficient to justify a mid-arbitration intervention. Accordingly, the court granted the petition. View "Sussex v. U.S. Dist. Court for the District of Nevada" on Justia Law

This labor dispute arose out of a negotiation between the State and other governmental entities (collectively, the State) and United Public Workers (UPW) regarding the renewal and modification of a collective bargaining agreement. The State and UPW failed to reach an agreement, and the case proceeded to arbitration. Because the parties were unable to select a neutral arbitrator, the Hawai’i Labor Relations Board (HLRB) ordered the American Arbitration Association to select the neutral arbitrator. Both parties challenged the actions of the HLRB. The circuit court affirmed the HLRB’s rulings. On appeal, UPW asserted that the circuit court had jurisdiction to resolve the dispute regarding the selection of the arbitrator. The Intermediate Court of Appeals disagreed, determining that HLRB had exclusive original jurisdiction under Haw. Rev. Stat. 89-14. UPW appealed, arguing that the circuit court had jurisdiction over the dispute regarding selection of the arbitrator under Haw. Rev. Stat. 658A. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the HLRB had jurisdiction to resolve the dispute over the selection of the arbitrator under chapter 89, as the arbitration was required by statute as part of the legislatively mandated process for resolving impasses in collective bargaining; and (2) chapter 658A was not applicable to this case. View "State v. Nakaneula" on Justia Law