Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed a class action suit against defendant alleging Labor Code violations. Defendant filed a petition to compel arbitration and dismiss the class claims. On appeal, defendant challenged the trial court's order denying its petition to compel arbitration and strike class claims. Plaintiff cross-appealed an order denying her Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 sanctions motion. The court concluded that J.I. Case Co. v. NLRB does not permit the court to refuse to enforce the arbitration clause in the individual agreement which is subject to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 2. The court agreed with defendant that plaintiff is required to arbitrate her statutory claims under an individual arbitration agreement where the arbitration agreement is enforceable because it is consistent with the collective bargaining agreement. Accordingly, the court reversed the order denying defendant's petition to compel arbitration. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of plaintiff's sanctions motion. Upon remittitur issuance, the trial court is to compel arbitration and stay the action until completion of arbitration. View "Willis v. Prime Healthcare Services" on Justia Law

Regions Bank appealed a trial court's order denying its motion to compel arbitration in its dispute with Jerry Neighbors. Neighbors obtained a home loan from Regions in 1999. As part of the loan application, Neighbors executed a dispute-resolution agreement (DRA). In 2008, Neighbors modified the loan. Neighbors denied he signed the loan-modification agreement; he claimed that his signature on that document was forged. The loan-modification agreement also contained an arbitration provision. In 2013, Neighbors sued Regions, alleging that Regions had negligently and wantonly allowed an imposter to forge Neighbors's signature on the loan-modification agreement. Relying on the DRA, Regions moved to compel the arbitration of Neighbors's claims. Neighbors opposed the motion to compel, arguing that because the dispute in this case involved an alleged forgery, the dispute could not be subject to the provisions of the DRA. Neighbors also suggested that the DRA did not cover his claims because, pursuant to the terms of the judgment divorcing him and his wife, he stopped making payments on the original mortgage in 2006 when his ex-wife remarried. Although Neighbors characterized the dispute otherwise, the Supreme Court concluded that the dispute in this case concerned the scope of the DRA. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Regions Bank v. Neighbors" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a putative class action suit against Sirius XM after he received three unauthorized phone calls from Sirius XM on his cellphone during his trial subscription. Plaintiff had purchased a vehicle from Toyota that included a 90-day trial subscription to Sirius XM satellite radio. The district court dismissed the action and granted Sirius XM's motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 2. The court, applying well-settled principles of contract law, concluded that no valid agreement to arbitrate exists between plaintiff and Sirius XM because plaintiff never assented to the Customer Agreement. A reasonable person in plaintiff's position could not be expected to understand that purchasing a vehicle from Toyota would simultaneously bind him or her to any contract to Sirius XM, let alone one that contained an arbitration provision without any notice of such terms. Nothing in the record indicated that Sirius XM's offer was clearly and effectively communicated to plaintiff by mailing him the Customer Agreement and his continued use of the service after his receipt of the Customer Agreement did not manifest his assent to the provisions of the Customer Agreement. Further, the Customer Agreement is not a valid "shrinkwrap" agreement. Because the arbitration clause in the Customer Agreement is unenforceable for lack of mutual assent, the court need not decide whether the arbitration provision in the Customer Agreement is unconscionable. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio" on Justia Law

Pine Top, an insurer, sued Banco, an entity wholly owned by Uruguay, claiming that Banco owes $2,352,464.08 under reinsurance contracts. The complaint sought to compel arbitration but alternately proposed that the court enter judgment for breach of contract. Pine Top moved to strike Banco’s answer for failure to post security under Illinois insurance law. The district court denied the motion and later denied the motion to compel arbitration. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, citing the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which prohibits attaching a foreign state’s property, thereby preventing application of the Illinois security requirement, 28 U.S.C. 1609. Banco did not waive its immunity in the manner allowed by that law and Pine Top forfeited contentions that the McCarran-Ferguson Act allows a state rule to govern. On the arbitration question, the court held that denials of motions to compel arbitration under the Panama Convention are immediately appealable under 9 U.S.C. 16(a)(1)(B), but that the contract language, reasonably read, does not transfer the right to demand arbitration. View "Pine Top Receivables of IL, LLC v. Banco de Seguros del Estado" on Justia Law

Doe settled his sexual abuse claims against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee for $80,000 after participating in a voluntary mediation program. He later filed a claim against the Archdiocese in its bankruptcy proceedings for the same sexual abuse. Doe responded to the Archdiocese’s motion for summary judgment by contending that his settlement was fraudulently induced. The argument depends upon statements made during the mediation, but Wisconsin law prohibits the admission in judicial proceedings of nearly all communications made during mediation. Doe argued that an exception applies here because the later action is “distinct from the dispute whose settlement is attempted through mediation,” Wis. Stat. 904.085(4)(e). The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the Archdiocese. Doe’s bankruptcy claim is not distinct from the dispute settled in mediation. The issue in both proceedings, which involved the same parties, is the Archdiocese’s responsibility for the sexual abuse Doe suffered. Doe sought damages in both the mediation and bankruptcy for the same sexual abuse; he did not seek separate or additional damages for the alleged fraudulent inducement. View "Doe v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee" on Justia Law

The Everetts formerly operated a PDRI franchise. After that franchise was terminated, they violated a non-compete clause. Only Mr. Everett and the Everetts’ corporation actually signed the franchise agreement. PDRI sought to bind Ms. Everett to an arbitration award pursuant to the franchise agreement. Although Everett was a non-signatory to the franchise agreement, PDRI asserted she was subject to arbitration under the doctrine of direct benefits estoppel. The district court determined that the benefits Everett received were filtered through her ownership interest in their corporation or through her husband and were therefore indirect. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that Everett did receive a direct benefit. It is clear that the Everetts’ corporation was formed to gain the benefit of the franchise agreement and was used only to conduct the business of the franchise; Ms. Everett had a 50% ownership and played an active role in running the corporation. View "Everett v. Paul Davis Restoration, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, filed a first amended class action complaint alleging that Gentry Homes, Ltd. constructed Plaintiffs’ home without adequate high wind protection. Gentry filed a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to a provision in the Home Builder’s Limited Warranty (HBLW) between Gentry and Plaintiffs. The circuit court ordered Plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims against Gentry but severed and struck an arbitrator-selection provision for potential conflict of interest. The intermediate court of appeals concluded that the circuit court should have enforced the HBLW’s arbitrator-selection provision. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA’s judgment and affirmed the circuit court orders, holding (1) the ICA erred in required a party challenging an arbitrator-selection provision to show evidence of “actual bias”; and (2) in resolving a challenge to an arbitrator-selection provision, the “fundamental fairness” standard should be applied, and under this standard, the arbitrator-selection provision was fundamentally unfair. View "Nishimura v. Gentry Homes, Ltd." on Justia Law

NASDAQ conducted the initial public offering (IPO) for Facebook in May 2012. UBS subsequently initiated an arbitration proceeding against NASDAQ seeking indemnification for injuries sustained in the Facebook IPO, as well as damages for breach of contract, breach of an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and gross negligence. NASDAQ initiated a declaratory judgment action to preclude UBS from pursuing arbitration. The district court granted a preliminary injunction and UBS appealed. The court concluded that federal jurisdiction is properly exercised in this case; the district court properly decided the question of arbitrability because the parties never clearly unmistakably expressed an intent to submit that question to arbitration, and such an intent cannot be inferred where, as here, a broad arbitration clause contains a carved-out provision that, at least arguably covers the instant dispute; UBS's claims against NASDAQ are not subject to arbitration because they fall within the preclusive language of NASDAQ Rule 4626(a), and the parties specifically agreed that their arbitration agreement was subject to limitations identified in, among other things, NASDAQ Rules; and, therefore, the court affirmed the district court's order preliminarily enjoining UBS from pursuing arbitration against NASDAQ. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "NASDAQ OMX Grp., Inc. v. UBS Sec., LLC" on Justia Law

Valensa filed suit against Cyanotech for tortious interference with contract and breach of a confidentiality agreement. Cyanotech then moved to compel arbitration based on two contracts between the parties. The district court denied the motion. The court reversed and remanded where the district court erred when it refused to allow an arbitrator to decide whether their dispute is arbitrable under one of the parties' contracts because the parties clearly and unmistakably incorporated the rules of the American Arbitration Association into their arbitration provisions. View "U.S. Nutraceuticals, LLC v. Cyanotech Corp." on Justia Law

Hennessy, a car parts manufacturer, beset by asbestos-related personal injury claims, sought coverage by National Union. The companies entered into a cost sharing agreement in 2008. As claims occurred, Hennessy asked National Union to indemnify its settlement and defense costs. To resolve their differences about what was owed, Hennessy demanded arbitration under the agreement, which instructs arbitrators to apply Illinois law. Hennessy filed suit under the Illinois Insurance Code 215 ILCS 5/155(1), which provides that, in cases involving vexatious and unreasonable delay, the court may award reasonable attorney fees, other costs, plus an additional amount. Hennessy claimed that National Union’s delays in providing coverage were vexatious and unreasonable. The district judge declined to dismiss, acknowledging a provision that “the arbitrators shall not be empowered or have jurisdiction to award punitive damages, fines or penalties,” but expressing a belief that Hennessy’s claim arose under statutory law rather than under the cost-sharing agreement. National Union appealed under 9 U.S.C. 16(a)(1)(A), (B), the Federal Arbitration Act. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Hennessy waived any right to ask the arbitrator to award punitive damages, fines, or penalties for an allegedly unreasonable delay. Having submitted a dispute to arbitration that explicitly excludes a particular remedy, a party cannot sue in court for that remedy. View "Hennessy Indus., Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co." on Justia Law