Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

Gott was a resident of Odin Healthcare where she died, on January 31, 2006. Her estate brought a survival action under the Nursing Home Care Act and the Wrongful Death Act, claiming that as a result of violations of the Nursing Home Care Act, Gott sustained gastrointestinal bleeding, anemia, and respiratory failure. The wrongful-death claim sought damages for injuries sustained by her heirs. Odin sought to compel arbitration based on agreements signed by Gott and by her “legal representative.” The trial court refused to compel arbitration, viewing the agreement as unenforceable for lack of mutuality and as contrary to public policy. The court held that the wrongful-death claim was not arbitrable and that the Federal Arbitration Act was inapplicable. On remand, the appellate court accepted applicability of the Federal Arbitration Act but still affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed in part. Arbitration can be compelled on Survival Act claims, alleging Nursing Home Care Act violations and seeking damages for injuries sustained by Gott while alive. However, the wrongful-death claim did not accrue until Gott died, and benefits obtained under it are payable to the next of kin rather than to her estate. No previously signed arbitration agreement is applicable to this claim. View "Carter v. SSC Odin Operating Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit seeking a judicial resolution of an LLC in which both Plaintiffs and Defendants held ownership interests. The district court ordered judicial dissolution and appointment of a receiver after finding that the managing member of the LLC, one of the defendants, had never operated the LLC in conformity with the operating agreement and had acted in a manner that was unduly prejudicial to Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there were substantial undisputed facts to support the district court's order for dissolution under Mont. Code Ann. 35-8-902(1), and the district court properly applied the statute; and (2) the district court properly denied Defendants' motion to amend their answer to add counterclaims because Defendants were required to arbitrate such claims under the operating agreement. View "Gordon v. Kuzara" on Justia Law

Avaya Inc. ("Avaya") appealed a district court's ruling compelling arbitration of its labor dispute with the Communication Workers of America ("CWA") over the legal status of a class of Avaya employees called "backbone engineers." The union viewed the backbone engineers as non-represented "occupational" employees and legitimate objects for its organizing campaigns, while Avaya saw them as managers outside the scope of the company's labor agreements. CWA contended the parties' collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") required any dispute over the status of backbone engineers to be resolved in arbitration. Avaya maintained the parties did not consent to arbitrate the status of its backbone engineers and accused CWA of trying to unilaterally enlarge the CBA to encompass disputes over company management. Having reviewed the CBA and the evidence submitted to the district court, the Tenth Circuit agreed with Avaya's position and reversed the district court's order compelling arbitration. View "CWA v. Avaya, Inc." on Justia Law

This appeal was rooted in a dispute over an arbitration award. Each party had selected an arbitrator, and a third neutral arbitrator was selected by the two party-appointed arbitrators. Appellee argued that the award should be vacated because one of the party-appointed arbitrators did not disclose that he was first cousins with one of the shareholders in the opposing counsel's law firm. The district court granted Appellee's motion to vacate arbitration award. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) under section 129 of the Utah Uniform Arbitration Act (UUAA), there is no appeal of right from a district court order denying confirmation of an arbitration award, vacating the award, and directing a rehearing; (2) party-appointed arbitrators are held to the disclosure standards of the UUAA and not the standards that apply to neutral arbitrators; and (3) the UUAA does not support vacatur in this case, as (i) under subsection 113(4) of the UUAA, the failure to disclose a relationship can support vacatur only if it also meets one of the provisions outlined in subsection 124(1)(b) of the UUAA; and (ii) none of those provisions was shown in this case. View "WestGate Resorts, Ltd. v. Adel" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought suit against defendants on behalf of themselves and similarly situated plaintiffs, alleging, inter alia, that defendants engaged in unlawful, unfair, and deceptive practices through unauthorized enrollment practices known as "post transaction marketing" and "data pass." At issue was whether plaintiffs were bound to arbitrate their dispute with defendants as a consequence of an arbitration provision that defendants asserted was part of a contract between the parties. The court concluded that despite some limited availability of the arbitration provision to plaintiffs, they were not bound to arbitrate this dispute. In regards to the email at issue, under the contract law of Connecticut or California - either of which could apply to this dispute - the email did not provide sufficient notice to plaintiffs of the arbitration provision, and plaintiffs therefore could not have assented to it solely as a result of their failure to cancel their enrollment in defendants' service. In regards to the hyperlink at issue, the court concluded that defendants forfeited the argument that plaintiffs were on notice of the arbitration provision through the hyperlink by failing to raise it in the district court. View "Schnabel et al. v. Trilegiant Corp. et al." on Justia Law

The issue in this case was whether an appellate court has jurisdiction over an appeal from a trial court order confirming an arbitration award in part and vacating the award in part based on the existence of unresolved questions of law or fact necessary to a ruling, yet the trial court did not expressly direct a rehearing. The court of appeals held that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal, holding (1) the judgment was not final because it did not contain finality language or otherwise state that it was a final judgment and necessarily contemplated resolution of the remaining issues by way of a rehearing, and therefore, the appeal was interlocutory; and (2) no statute permitted an appeal in this case. The Supreme Court affirmed and, for different reasons, dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, holding (1) the appeal was interlocutory; (2) the Texas Arbitration Act did not provide jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal; and (3) there is no jurisdiction over arbitration awards that are incomplete unless, under certain circumstances, the parties file a writ of mandamus, which neither party here filed. View "Bison Bldg. Materials, Ltd. v. Aldridge" on Justia Law

The Union attempted to commence arbitration of a terminated employee's grievance. Before arbitration proceedings commenced, the employee died, and the employer refused to proceed with arbitration. The Union brought this suit to compel arbitration. The district court found that the employer did not agree to arbitrate claims of a deceased employee and dismissed the case. The court reversed and held that the parties agreed to mandatory arbitration of the employee's claim and no legal principal deprived the Union of power to enforce that agreement. View "Sheet Metal Workers, etc. v. Silgan Containers, etc." on Justia Law

National Union appealed from the district court's award of consequential damages to plaintiffs, following a jury trial, for National Union's breach of its duty to defendant plaintiffs in a securities arbitration. At issue was whether consequential damages, which were traditionally available for breach of contract claims, were also available for a claim of breach of a duty to defend an insured under Connecticut law, and if so, whether they could include damages for harm to reputation and loss of income. Absent a precedential decision from the Connecticut courts, the court certified the two issues. View "Ryan v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins." on Justia Law

This case related to an arbitration award denying an express easement on Petitioners' property. Petitioners filed a petition in the circuit court to confirm the arbitration award, and Respondent filed a motion to vacate the same. Respondent argued that the award was irrational because, without an easement over Petitioners' land, his land would be landlocked. The circuit court confirmed the arbitration award, relying upon the Uniform Arbitration Act. The court of special appeals (CSA) reversed, overturned the arbitrator's denial of the easement, and directed that an easement by necessity be located over Petitioners' land. While recognizing the Act's limitation on the authority of the courts to overturn arbitration awards, the CSA pointed out that arbitration awards that were completely irrational or which were manifestly in disregard of the law had been overturned in previous opinions. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the CSA and remanded with directions to vacate the circuit court, holding (1) the arbitration award, in part, was contradictory; and (2) Md. Code Ann. Cts. & Jud. Proc. 3-225(a) authorizes a court to vacate an award and order a rehearing before arbitrators when the award is ambiguous or contradictory. Remanded for further proceedings pursuant to section 3-225(a). View "Downey v. Sharp" on Justia Law

Appellants, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against their Internet service providers (Providers). Providers' Internet service agreement contained an arbitration clause that required customers to submit damage claims against Insight to arbitration, and it barred class action litigation against Providers by their customers. The circuit court determined the class action ban was enforceable and dismissed Appellants' complaint. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the contractual provision under which Appellants waived their right to participate in class action litigation was enforceable under federal law; (2) the service agreement's choice of law provision was not enforceable; (3) the service agreement's general arbitration provision was enforceable; and (4) the provision imposing a confidentiality requirement upon the litigants to arbitration proceedings was void and severable from the remaining portions of the agreement. Remanded for entry of a final judgment. View "Schnuerle v. Insight Commc'ns Co., LP" on Justia Law