Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

The Court of Chancery granted Plaintiff's motion seeking confirmation of an arbitration award and denied Defendants' cross-motion requesting that the award be vacated, holding that Defendants were not entitled to relief on their claims of error.Plaintiff and Defendants entered into an amended and restated limited liability company agreement (LLC agreement) setting out the parties' rights and obligations. The LLC agreement contained an arbitration provision stating that disputes arising out of the contract would be determined by arbitration. Plaintiff later filed a demand for arbitration, and the arbitral panel issued an award in favor of Plaintiff. The Court of Chancery confirmed the arbitration award, holding that the tribunal did not manifestly disregard the law and that Defendants' arguments regarding mootness were unavailing. View "Huntington Way Associates LLC v. RRI Associates LLC" on Justia Law

Henry participated in an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) sponsored by his employer. After the ESOP purchased stock at what Henry believed was an inflated price, Henry filed a lawsuit against the plan’s trustee and executives of his employer, alleging that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to the ESOP imposed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001, and engaged in transactions prohibited by ERISA. The defendants argued that an arbitration provision, added to the ESOP’s plan documents after Henry joined the ESOP, barred Henry from pursuing his claims in federal court. The district court denied their motion to dismiss, reasoning that all parties to an arbitration agreement must manifest assent to the agreement, and Henry did not manifest his assent to the addition of an arbitration provision to the ESOP plan document.The Third Circuit affirmed, first confirming its jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss was effectively a motion to compel arbitration, 9 U.S.C. 16(a) provides appellate jurisdiction to review the denial of that motion. The class action waiver (and, by extension, the arbitration provision as a whole) is not enforceable because it requires him to waive statutory rights and remedies guaranteed by ERISA. View "Henry v. Wilmington Trust NA" on Justia Law

Plaintiff worked for Defendant Skyview Capital, LLC. He sued this entity and others in state court after his termination. Skyview moved to compel arbitration. The trial court granted the motion and stayed the proceedings. Skyview had to pay arbitration fees ahead of the hearing. The fees were due June 4, 2021. On July 7, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel asked the case manager whether Skyview had paid the deposits. On July 8, 2021, the case manager confirmed by email that Skyview had not paid. Plaintiff filed in the trial court a section 1281.98 Election to Withdraw from Arbitration. The court’s February 2022 order granted Plaintiff’s request to withdraw from arbitration, vacated the order staying proceedings, and awarded Plaintiff reasonable expenses under section 1281.99.
The Second Appellate District affirmed, holding that the order allowing Plaintiff to withdraw from arbitration was proper. The court explained that in enacting sections 1281.97 through 1281.99, the Legislature perceived employers’ and companies’ failure to pay arbitration fees was foiling the efficient resolution of cases. This contravened public policy. The Legislature responded by making nonpayment and untimely payment grounds for proceeding in court and getting sanctions. The point was to take this issue away from arbitrators, who may be financially interested in continuing the arbitration and in pleasing regular clients. Therefore, the trial court was right to decide this matter of statutory law. View "Cvejic v. Skyview Capital" on Justia Law

Ford Motor Company (Ford) appealed from an order denying its motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiffs’ causes of action for breach of warranty, violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code, Section 1790 et seq.; the Song-Beverly Act) and for fraudulent omission arising from alleged defects in a sports utility vehicle Plaintiffs’ purchased from the dealership, AutoNation Ford Valencia (AutoNation). The central question on appeal is whether Ford as the manufacturer of the vehicle, can enforce an arbitration provision in the sales contract between Plaintiffs and AutoNation to which Ford was not a party under the doctrine of equitable estoppel or as a third-party beneficiary of the contract.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded Ford cannot enforce the arbitration provision in the sales contract because Plaintiffs’ claims against Ford are founded on Ford’s express warranty for the vehicle, not any obligation imposed on Ford by the sales contract, and thus, Plaintiffs’ claims are not inextricably intertwined with any obligations under the sales contract. Nor was the sales contract between Plaintiffs and AutoNation intended to benefit Ford. View "Montemayor v. Ford Motor Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court remanded this case to the court of appeal to determine in the first instance whether Sarah Plott Key was entitled to equitable relief from the 100-day deadline prescribed by Cal. Code Civ. P. 1288.2, holding that the section 1288.2 deadline is not jurisdictional and does not otherwise prelude equitable tolling or estoppel.Plaintiff prevailed in an arbitration against Defendant and petitioned to confirm the award. Defendant moved to vacate the award. The trial court vacated the award despite the fact that Defendant filed her motion to vacate outside the 100-day deadline. The court of appeal reversed, concluding that the 100-day deadline was jurisdictional and that the parties could not extend the deadline by agreement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Plaintiff's requests were filed outside the applicable statutory period; and (2) section 1288.2's deadline for seeking vacatur of an arbitral award is a nonjurisdictional statute of limitations that is subject to equitable tolling and equitable estoppel. View "Law Finance Group, LLC v. Key" on Justia Law

Bielski filed a putative class action, alleging that Coinbase, an online currency platform, failed to replace funds fraudulently taken from its users’ accounts. Coinbase’s User Agreement provides for binding arbitration. The district court denied Coinbase’s motion to compel arbitration. Coinbase then filed an interlocutory appeal under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 16(a), and moved the district court to stay its proceedings. The district court and Ninth Circuit denied stay motions.The Supreme Court reversed. A district court must stay its proceedings while an interlocutory appeal on the question of arbitrability is ongoing. Section 16(a) does not say whether district court proceedings must be stayed pending resolution of an interlocutory appeal but an appeal, including an interlocutory appeal, “divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Because the question on appeal is whether the case belongs in arbitration or in court, the entire case is essentially “involved in the appeal,” and precedent requires that the court stay its proceedings while the interlocutory appeal on arbitrability is ongoing. If the court could move forward with proceedings while the appeal was ongoing, many of the asserted benefits of arbitration (efficiency, less expense, less intrusive discovery) would be irretrievably lost. Absent a stay, parties could be forced to settle to avoid discovery and trial that they contracted to avoid through arbitration. When Congress wants to authorize an interlocutory appeal, but not to automatically stay district court proceedings pending that appeal, Congress typically says so. View "Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski" on Justia Law

NuVasive, Inc. manufactures medical products and equipment to treat spinal diseases. In central Florida, NuVasive sold its products through an exclusive distribution agreement with Absolute Medical, LLC. Under the agreement, Absolute Medical employed independent-contractor sales representatives who marketed and sold NuVasive’s products to doctors and medical practices in the region. NuVasive sued Absolute Medical, Soufleris, AMS, and two of Absolute Medical’s sales representatives who began working for AMS for breaching the exclusive. The district court enforced a dispute resolution clause in the agreement, ordering NuVasive and Absolute Medical to arbitrate NuVasive’s breach-of-contract claim seeking money damages. Absolute Medical, Soufleris, AMS, and the sales representatives appealed the district court’s order granting NuVasive’s motion to vacate the arbitration panel’s final award.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that the district court did not err by equitably tolling the three-month filing deadline and considering NuVasive’s motion as timely. The court explained that the district court’s findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, and they supported the district court’s conclusion that NuVasive satisfied both prongs of the equitable tolling analysis. Defendants’ conduct presented extraordinary circumstances, and NuVasive was diligent once it learned that there was reason to pursue vacatur. Further, the court held that the district court did not err by vacating the final award. The district court correctly concluded that the fraud was materially related to that issue. Finally, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to direct a rehearing by the arbitration panel. View "Nuvasive, Inc. v. Absolute Medical, LLC, et al." on Justia Law

An arbitrator issued subpoenas to compel two individuals, who were not parties to the arbitration, to appear and produce documents at a hearing specially set “for the limited purpose of receiving documents” from them, or to download the documents to a website controlled by counsel for the party requesting the subpoenas. The subpoenas provided that after the production of documents, the “hearing” would be adjourned to a later date, at which time the subpoenaed nonparties would be summoned to appear and testify. The date for their compliance with the document production was nearly 12 months before the scheduled arbitration hearing on the merits. After the nonparties refused to comply with the subpoenas, the arbitrator compelled compliance. The nonparties petitioned the trial court to vacate the order compelling their compliance with the subpoenas. The trial court denied the petition to vacate the order, concluding the subpoenas were statutorily authorized “hearing” subpoenas under California Arbitration Act section 1282.6, not subpoenas issued for the purposes of discovery. The nonparties argued the judgment should be reversed because the subpoenas were improper discovery subpoenas, despite being labeled “hearing” subpoenas. Under the specific facts of this case, the Court of Appeal agreed with the nonparties. View "McConnell v. Advantest America" on Justia Law

Advantage Veterans Services of Walterboro, LLC (“AVSW”) and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International, Local 7898 (the “Union”) dispute the legitimacy of an arbitration award, which stemmed from the discharge of a union-represented employee. The appeal centers on the provisions of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (the “CBA”). The CBA contains a number of provisions that govern the relationship between AVSW, the Union and the Union’s members who work at AVSW.   The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s order affirming the arbitration award and vacated the underlying award. The court explained that its deferential standard for determining whether an arbitrator erred substantively is rooted in the contractual nature of arbitration. If the parties agree to resolve disputes by arbitration, the court defers to the determinations made in the process the parties agreed to. Here, however, the CBA limits the arbitrator’s power. It requires that the arbitrator make the reasonable basis determination. And it premises the legitimacy of any arbitration award on the arbitrator’s compliance with that directive. It even provides that any award that is contrary to the CBA in any way—which includes that directive—“shall be deemed not to draw its essence from the [CBA] and shall be vacated.” The court explained that given this language, it would be paradoxical to use a highly deferential standard of review, which, once again, is rooted in principles of contract, to look past the arbitrator’s failure to follow contractually agreed-upon procedural rules for the arbitration. View "Advantage Veterans Services of Walterboro LLC v. United Steel Paper and Forestry Rubber" on Justia Law

Hicks Unlimited, Inc. contracted to rent uniforms for its employees from UniFirst Corporation. The contract contained an arbitration provision stating all disputes between them would be decided by binding arbitration to be conducted "pursuant to the Expedited Procedures of the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association [AAA] and shall be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act [FAA]." A dispute arose; UniFirst moved to compel arbitration. Hicks contended the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it did not comply with the notice requirements of South Carolina's Arbitration Act (SCAA). The circuit court denied the motion to compel arbitration, ruling the contract did not implicate interstate commerce and, therefore, the FAA did not apply. The circuit court further ruled the arbitration provision was not enforceable because it did not meet the SCAA's notice requirements. UniFirst appealed. The court of appeals reversed, holding arbitration should have been compelled because the contract involved interstate commerce and, therefore, the FAA preempted the SCAA. The South Carolina Supreme Court found that because the contract between Hicks and UniFirst did not involve interstate commerce in fact, the order of the circuit court denying UniFirst's motion to compel arbitration was affirmed, and the court of appeals' opinion was reversed. View "Hicks Unlimited v. UniFirst" on Justia Law