Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

Several individuals who worked as waitstaff at a club operated by Benelux Corporation brought a lawsuit in 2024, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. In 2020, Benelux had distributed an arbitration agreement to its employees. The agreement included two signature boxes—one for the employee and one for Benelux’s representative—and stated that by signing, both parties represented that they had read and understood the agreement and agreed to be bound by its terms. One employee, Cadena, signed both signature boxes, but Benelux’s general manager did not sign the agreement due to an oversight.After being sued, Benelux moved to compel arbitration based on the unsigned agreement. Cadena argued that the agreement was not enforceable because Benelux had not signed it, stating she did not intend to be bound unless Benelux also signed. The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and denied Benelux’s motion to compel, finding that the agreement required signatures from both parties to be enforceable, and Benelux had not signed.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. Applying Texas contract law, the Fifth Circuit held that the language of the arbitration agreement clearly required signatures from both the employee and Benelux’s representative for the agreement to be enforceable. Because Benelux did not sign, there was no valid arbitration agreement between Benelux and Cadena. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment denying Benelux’s motion to compel arbitration. View "Mertens v. Benelux Corporation" on Justia Law

An employee was hired by a security services company in 2012 and, as a condition of employment, signed an arbitration agreement requiring that any employment-related disputes be resolved through arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). In 2023, the employee was assigned to work at Oracle Park, where he was subjected to hostile and derogatory conduct by supervisors and coworkers based on his perceived sexual orientation, including intrusive questioning, mocking, and reduction of work hours. After formally complaining about this treatment, the employee was terminated. He then filed a lawsuit against his employer and two individuals, asserting multiple claims, including sexual harassment under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.The defendants sought to compel arbitration based on the prior agreement, arguing that all claims fell within its scope and that both federal and state law required enforcement. The plaintiff opposed the motion, challenging the agreement’s validity but not specifically referencing the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA). The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco issued a tentative ruling, later adopted as final, finding that the EFAA rendered the arbitration agreement unenforceable because the plaintiff stated a valid sexual harassment claim. The court further found that the EFAA barred arbitration of the entire case, not just the sexual harassment claim, and that the plaintiff’s conduct showed he elected to pursue his claims in court.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration. The court held that the EFAA applies to cases involving sexual harassment claims and bars enforcement of predispute arbitration agreements for the entire case at the plaintiff’s election, without requiring an explicit invocation of the EFAA. The court also held that the trial court properly considered the EFAA’s applicability and provided due process, even without supplemental briefing. View "Quilala v. Securitas Security Services USA" on Justia Law

A woman rented a car from a rental company in 2014 and, after a traffic camera recorded a violation during her rental, the company paid the fine and charged her both the fine amount and an administrative fee. She filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of customers who were charged fines and fees in similar circumstances, alleging state-law claims such as violations of consumer fraud statutes and unjust enrichment. The rental company later updated its rental agreements in 2016 to include an arbitration clause and class-action waiver, but this provision applied only prospectively to rentals after its adoption. The named plaintiffs’ rentals predated this clause.The District Court, after years of litigation that included several amended complaints, discovery, mediation, and a motion to certify a class, ultimately certified a subclass that included some renters whose agreements contained the arbitration provision. The District Court found that the rental company had waived its right to enforce arbitration by participating in litigation for several years without moving to compel arbitration. The company then filed a motion to compel arbitration for the affected class members, which the District Court denied again on waiver grounds, emphasizing that the company had not sought to enforce arbitration until after class certification.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the waiver issue de novo. The Third Circuit held that waiver of the right to compel arbitration did not occur here, because the company’s conduct—such as raising arbitration as an affirmative defense and the futility of seeking to compel arbitration prior to class certification—did not evince an intentional relinquishment of that right. The Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration and remanded for consideration of other unresolved questions about enforceability. View "Valli v. Avis Budget Group Inc" on Justia Law

The case centers on an employee who brought multiple claims against her former employer, including several for violations of California’s Labor Code and a representative claim under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The employee had signed an arbitration agreement at the start of her employment. As a result, all non-PAGA claims were compelled to arbitration, while the PAGA claims (both individual and representative) were stayed. The arbitrator found in favor of the employer on all Labor Code violations, concluding that the alleged violations did not occur.Following the arbitration, the Superior Court of San Bernardino County confirmed the arbitrator’s award and granted judgment on the pleadings against the employee on her PAGA claim, ruling that the arbitration results established she was not an “aggrieved employee” under PAGA, and therefore lacked standing to pursue the PAGA claim. When the employee appealed, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, affirmed the denial of her motion to vacate the arbitration award but reversed the judgment on the pleadings as to the PAGA claim, holding that the arbitration did not preclude her from pursuing PAGA penalties.Subsequently, the employer filed a renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that subsequent appellate court decisions and the California Supreme Court’s decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., constituted an intervening change in the law, rendering the law of the case doctrine inapplicable. The trial court denied this motion, finding that its prior ruling remained law of the case. Reviewing this denial, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, held that the law of the case doctrine properly applied because there had been no controlling intervening change in the law. The court denied the employer’s writ petition, confirming that the arbitrator’s findings on non-PAGA claims did not preclude judicial determination of the employee’s standing under PAGA. View "Prime Healthcare Management v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Several participants in a terminated employee stock ownership plan asserted claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) following the sale and dissolution of their plan. The plan, created by A360, Inc. in 2016, purchased all company stock and became its sole owner. In 2019, A360 and its trustee sold the plan’s shares to another entity, amending the plan at the same time to include an arbitration clause that required all claims to be resolved individually and prohibited representative, class, or group relief. The plan was terminated shortly thereafter, and the proceeds were distributed to participants. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants undervalued the shares and breached fiduciary duties, seeking plan-wide monetary and equitable relief.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia considered the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration based on the plan’s amended arbitration provisions. The district court determined that although the plan itself could assent to arbitration, the arbitration provision was unenforceable because it precluded plan-wide relief authorized by ERISA. The court found that the provision constituted a prospective waiver of statutory rights and concluded that, per the plan amendment’s own terms, the arbitration provision was not severable and thus entirely void.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration de novo. The Eleventh Circuit held that the arbitration provision was unenforceable under the effective vindication doctrine because it barred participants from seeking plan-wide relief for breaches of fiduciary duty, as provided by ERISA. The court joined other circuits in concluding that such provisions violate ERISA’s substantive rights and affirmed the district court’s invalidation of the arbitration procedure and denial of the motion to compel arbitration. View "Williams v. Shapiro" on Justia Law

A former hourly employee brought a class action lawsuit against his former employer, a large wood products company, alleging various wage and hour violations under California law. The proposed classes included both employees who had signed arbitration agreements and those who had not. While some nonexempt employees had signed arbitration agreements requiring individual arbitration and waiving class actions, the named plaintiffs had not. The employer did not initially assert arbitration as a defense and, when ordered by the court to produce copies of signed arbitration agreements for putative class members, failed to do so for several years.During the course of discovery in the Superior Court of Shasta County, the employer repeatedly resisted requests to identify or produce arbitration agreements for employees who had signed them, leading to multiple discovery sanctions. The employer participated in extensive discovery and mediation involving employees who had signed arbitration agreements, without distinguishing them from other putative class members. Only after class certification did the employer finally produce thousands of signed arbitration agreements and immediately moved to compel arbitration for those employees. Plaintiffs opposed, arguing the employer had waived its right to arbitrate by years of litigation conduct inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate, and sought evidentiary and issue sanctions for delayed production.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. Applying the California Supreme Court’s standard from Quach v. California Commerce Club, Inc., the appellate court held that the employer waived its right to compel arbitration by clear and convincing evidence. The employer’s prolonged failure to produce arbitration agreements and its conduct throughout litigation was inconsistent with an intention to enforce arbitration. The order denying the motion to compel arbitration was affirmed, and the appeal from the order granting evidentiary and issue sanctions was dismissed as nonappealable. View "Sierra Pacific Industries Wage and Hour Cases" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on insurance policies purchased by several Louisiana public entities, including the Town of Vinton, from a group of foreign and American insurers. The policies included an arbitration clause and a contract endorsement stating that each policy is a “separate contract” between the insured and each insurer. After alleged breaches, the insured entities sued all participating insurers in Louisiana state court. Subsequently, the insureds dismissed the foreign insurers with prejudice, leaving only American insurers as defendants.Following the dismissal of the foreign insurers, the remaining American insurers removed the cases to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. They sought to compel arbitration under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and the Federal Arbitration Act. The district court denied these motions, holding that the contract endorsement created separate agreements between each insurer and the insured, and, since the foreign insurers were no longer parties, no agreement involved a non-American party. The court also rejected the American insurers’ equitable estoppel argument, finding it precluded by Louisiana law, which expressly bars arbitration clauses in insurance contracts covering property in the state.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Fifth Circuit held that the Convention does not apply because no foreign party remains in any agreement to arbitrate. The court further concluded that Louisiana law prohibits enforcement of arbitration clauses in these insurance contracts and that equitable estoppel cannot override this prohibition. Lastly, the court determined that the delegation clause in the arbitration agreement could not be enforced because Louisiana law prevents the valid formation of an arbitration agreement in this context. View "Town of Vinton v. Indian Harbor" on Justia Law

Two neighbors in a residential community disagreed about a tree branch that obstructed one neighbor’s view. Jinshu Zhang, the owner seeking the view, used his homeowners association’s dispute resolution process, which included mediation and arbitration services provided by Charles Peterson, an independent mediator. When the association dismissed Zhang’s application, Zhang sued Peterson for breach of fiduciary duty, claiming Peterson was a director or officer of the association and thus owed him such a duty. However, Peterson was neither a director nor an officer, but an independent contractor. Zhang lost his lawsuit against Peterson following a nonsuit at trial, and did not appeal.After that case concluded, Peterson filed a malicious prosecution action against Zhang, alleging Zhang’s earlier suit was baseless and continued without probable cause once Zhang had evidence Peterson was not an officer or director. In response, Zhang filed a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16), seeking to dismiss Peterson’s malicious prosecution claim. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Zhang’s anti-SLAPP motion, finding Peterson’s case had at least minimal merit based on evidence showing Zhang lacked probable cause and may have acted with malice in pursuing the prior suit.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed Zhang’s appeal. The court affirmed the denial of Zhang’s anti-SLAPP motion, holding that the denial of a discretionary sanctions motion in the underlying suit did not establish probable cause under the “interim adverse judgment rule,” and did not bar the malicious prosecution claim. The court concluded that Peterson’s evidence on lack of probable cause and malice was sufficient to allow his case to proceed, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Peterson v. Zhang" on Justia Law

A dispute arose from the design and installation of cabinetry in a luxury home in Charleston, South Carolina. Design Gaps, Inc., owned by David and Eva Glover, had a longstanding business relationship with Shelter, LLC, a general contractor operated by Ryan and Jenny Butler. After being dissatisfied with Design Gaps’ performance, the homeowners, Dr. Jason and Kacie Highsmith, and Shelter terminated their contract with Design Gaps and hired Distinctive Design & Construction LLC, owned by Bryan and Wendy Reiss, to complete the work. The Highsmiths and Shelter initiated arbitration against Design Gaps, which led to the arbitrator ruling in favor of the homeowners and Shelter on their claims, and against Design Gaps on its counterclaims, including those for copyright infringement, tortious interference, and unfair trade practices.After the arbitration, Design Gaps sought to vacate the arbitration award in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, but the court instead confirmed the award. Concurrently, Design Gaps filed a separate federal lawsuit against several parties, including some who were not part of the arbitration. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that res judicata and collateral estoppel barred the new claims, or alternatively, that the claims failed on other grounds such as the statute of limitations and laches. The district court agreed, dismissing most claims based on preclusion or other legal bars, and granted summary judgment on the remaining claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decisions. The court held that res judicata and collateral estoppel applied to bar most of Design Gaps’ claims, even against parties not directly involved in the arbitration but in privity with those who were. For the remaining claims, the court found they were properly dismissed on grounds such as the statute of limitations, waiver, or laches. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in full. View "Design Gaps, Inc. v. Distinctive Design & Construction LLC" on Justia Law

Two financial advisors entered into two agreements as part of a business transaction: an operating agreement establishing them as members of a wealth management firm and a purchase-and-sale contract under which one advisor would gradually buy out the other's ownership interest. The operating agreement contained a noncompete clause and provisions for mediation and arbitration. After the buyout concluded, the selling advisor remained employed with the company and could only be terminated for cause. In January 2024, he was terminated for cause and immediately began working at a competing firm within the restricted radius specified in the noncompete provision.Following his termination, the company and the buying advisor filed suit in the Circuit Court of Forrest County, alleging breach of contract and seeking, among other relief, a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to enforce the noncompete clause. The trial court granted the injunction and denied the selling advisor’s motions to dissolve the restraining order, to deny the injunction, and to compel mediation and/or arbitration. The trial court found that the noncompete clause remained binding and that the parties had not shown a clear intent to compel mediation or arbitration for this dispute, given specific contractual language.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed whether the noncompete provision was enforceable, whether the trial court erred in issuing the preliminary injunction, and whether the denial of the motion to compel mediation/arbitration was proper. The Court held that the noncompete provision was binding based on the evidence at the preliminary injunction stage, that the trial court did not err in granting the preliminary injunction, and that the mediation/arbitration provisions were not clearly applicable to this dispute. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the trial court’s order in all respects. View "Wiggins v. Southern Securities Group, LLC" on Justia Law