Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

FCI Miami employees work in several departments. When the Custody Department was short-staffed, FCI either left Custody positions vacant or paid a Custody employee overtime. In 2016, FCI notified the union (AFGE) that it planned to start using Non-Custody employees to fill vacant Custody positions; it called the process “augmentation.” AFGE sought to negotiate the matter. FCI denied the request, stating that it had implemented augmentation consistent with the Master Agreement, which permits FCI to change the shift or assignment of Custody and Non-Custody employees: FCI viewed augmentation as “reassignment.”AFGE filed a formal grievance. An arbitrator concluded that FCI had breached a binding past practice of non-augmentation and violated the Master Agreement by implementing and failing to bargain over augmentation. FCI filed exceptions. The Federal Labor Relations Authority concluded that the arbitrator award failed to draw its essence from the parties’ agreement because the Master Agreement unambiguously “gives [FCI] broad discretion to assign and reassign employees”—encompassing the practice of augmentation— and set aside the award. The D.C. Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute allows for judicial review of an Authority decision arising from review of arbitral awards only if “the order involves an unfair labor practice, 5 U.S.C. 7123(a)(1). The Authority decision does not “involve” an unfair labor practice. View "American Federation of Government Employees Local 3690 v. Federal Labor Relations Authority" on Justia Law

Boykin, a 73-year-old African-American veteran, worked in managerial roles for Family Dollar Stores. On July 8, 2018, Boykin had a dispute with a customer. Family Dollar fired Boykin weeks later. Boykin sued, alleging age and race discrimination. Family Dollar moved to compel arbitration, introducing a declaration that Family Dollar employees must take online training sessions, including a session about arbitration. When taking online courses, employees use their own unique ID and password. During the arbitration session, they must review and accept Family Dollar’s arbitration agreement. According to Family Dollar, Boykin completed the session on July 15, 2013. Boykin replied under oath that he did not consent to or acknowledge an arbitration agreement at any time, that he had no recollection of taking the arbitration session, and that no one ever told him that arbitration was a condition of his employment. Boykin requested his personnel file, which did not include an arbitration agreement. The district court granted Family Dollar’s motion.The Sixth Circuit reversed. Although the Federal Arbitration Act requires a court to summarily compel arbitration upon a party’s request, the court may do so only if the opposing side has not put the making of the arbitration contract “in issue.” 9 U.S.C. 4. Boykin’s evidence created a genuine issue of fact over whether he electronically accepted the contract or otherwise learned of Family Dollar’s arbitration policy. View "Boykin v. Family Dollar Stores of Michigan, LLC" on Justia Law

JP-Richardson, LLC (JP) appealed a court a judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of Pacific Oak SOR Richardson Portfolio JV, LLC F/K/A KBS SOR Richardson Portfolio JV, LLC (Pacific Oak) in a business dispute. Pacific Oak removed JP as the managing member of a joint venture real estate company. JP initiated arbitration, seeking to be reinstated as the managing member. The arbitrator determined Pacific Oak’s decision to remove JP was justified, and JP owed over $1 million (the cost of arbitration). On appeal, JP argued the trial court erred by denying its petition to vacate the award and by granting Pacific Oak’s motion to confirm the award. Concluding JP’s contentions lacked merit, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. View "JP-Richardson v. Pacific Oaks etc." on Justia Law

SmileDirect sells orthodontic implements online as an alternative to traditional orthodontists. Plaintiffs sued SmileDirect, alleging false advertising. SmileDirect and its customers had an arbitration agreement that excepted claims within the jurisdiction of Small Claims Court. The district court concluded that whether the claims fell within that exception was a gateway question of arbitrability and that the parties agreed to arbitrate such gateway questions. The consumer plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims.One consumer plaintiff, Johnson filed a demand for class-wide arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (AAA). An AAA administrator stated that AAA’s Healthcare Due Process Protocol and Healthcare Policy Statement applied, which require healthcare providers and their patients to sign an arbitration agreement after a dispute arises in certain cases unless a court order has compelled arbitration. Johnson declined to sign the post-dispute agreement and moved to rejoin this case. The district court held that Johnson satisfied his obligations under the arbitration agreement, concluding that the arbitration agreement did not cover the dispute.The Sixth Circuit reversed. Whether an arbitration agreement covers a dispute is a gateway question of arbitrability, and here the parties delegated such questions to an arbitrator. Under the agreement and the incorporated AAA rules, it was improper for an administrator to effectively answer that gateway question or to overlook it altogether by binding the parties to AAA’s views of sound policy. View "Ciccio v. SmileDirectClub, LLC" on Justia Law

Years after Starline and TMZ launched a joint venture to operate a celebrity bus tour together, TMZ terminated their agreement. TMZ and Starline brought their claims (and counterclaims) to arbitration, and the arbitrator ultimately issued the final award in favor of TMZ. After the Appeal Panel affirmed the majority of the arbitrator's award, Starline moved to vacate the award in district court, and TMZ petitioned to confirm the award. The district court denied Starline's motion and granted TMZ's petition. The Ninth Circuit subsequently issued Monster Energy Co. v. City Beverages, LLC, 940 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2019), interpreting the standard for "evident partiality" to warrant vacatur of an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Starline's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion on the grounds that the arbitrators did not exhibit evident partiality by failing to disclose JAMS's prior business dealings with TMZ or its counsel. The panel also concluded that the district court likewise did not err when it declined to vacate the arbitration award on the grounds that (1) the arbitrator did not produce a form indicating she had no conflicts with the Boies Schiller law firm, (2) the arbitrator improperly granted an anti-SLAPP motion, or (3) based on her interpretation of California partnership law.However, the panel concluded that the district court clearly erred in concluding that JAMS provided a disclosure in accordance with Monster Energy, where JAMS declined to make such disclosure and instead asserted that the arbitrators no longer had jurisdiction over the arbitration. Accordingly, the panel remanded this issue to the district court to consider in the first instance how the parties can obtain from JAMS the information required by Monster Energy. The panel affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded in part. View "EHM Productions, Inc. v. Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc." on Justia Law

After New Adesta initiated an arbitration against the guarantors of certain indemnification obligations, three of the guarantors, brought an action in Nebraska state court seeking a declaration that New Adesta's arbitral claims were released and discharged in a settlement agreement. New Adesta removed to federal court and moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss guarantors' case. The district court granted New Adesta's motion in its entirety.The Eighth Circuit concluded that the Settlement Agreement neither abrogated, modified, nor terminated the arbitration clauses set forth in the Purchase Agreement. In this case, the underlying issue, indemnification for the NYSTA work, is not a matter that was addressed in the Settlement Agreement, the Nebraska action, or the Illinois action. The court explained that, while the Federal Arbitration Act generally requires a federal district court to stay an action pending an arbitration, rather than to dismiss it, district courts may, in their discretion, dismiss an action rather than stay it where it is clear the entire controversy between the parties will be resolved by arbitration. In this case, the court concluded that the parties have a valid agreement to arbitrate the claims at issue, which fall within the scope of the arbitration clauses. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Sommerfeld v. Adesta, LLC" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal is whether (despite agreeing to arbitrate any dispute with their employer) final-mile delivery drivers—drivers who make local deliveries of goods and materials that have been shipped from out-of-state to a local warehouse—are in a "class of workers engaged in foreign and interstate commerce" and, thus, exempt under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) from having to arbitrate their Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims. The district court concluded that they were exempt and refused to compel arbitration.The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the district court misapplied Hill v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 398 F.3d 1286, 1290 (11th Cir. 2005), and wrongly determined that the exemption applied. The court reversed the part of the district court's order denying the employer's motion to compel arbitration under the FAA and remanded for the district court to determine whether the drivers are in a class of workers employed in the transportation industry and whether the class, in general, is actually engaged in foreign or interstate commerce. The court dismissed the part of the appeal challenging the district court's denial of the employer's motion to compel arbitration under state arbitration law based on lack of appellate jurisdiction. View "Hamrick v. Partsfleet, LLC" on Justia Law

Colulmbia City seeks to compel IMA to arbitrate a dispute involving unreimbursed medical fees. The parties are connected by a series of intermediary agreements within a preferred provider organization (PPO) network that allows patients in covered health plans to receive medical services from participating hospitals at discounted rates, and one of these agreements contains an arbitration clause. It is undisputed that IMA is not a party or signatory to the Hospital Agreement that contains the arbitration clause.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Columbia Hospital's motion to compel arbitration. Applying Texas law, the court concluded that the district court correctly applied this circuit's precedent that knowledge of the agreement requires knowledge of the contract's basic terms. In this case, the district court did not clearly err in concluding, based on the record before it, that IMA lacked the requisite knowledge of the Hospital Agreement and its basic terms to be compelled to arbitrate under direct benefits estoppel. Alternatively, the court declined, contrary to Columbia Health's assertions, to construe the series of contracts between IMA, PPOplus, HealthSmart and Columbia Hospital as a unified contract. View "IMA, Inc. v. Columbia Hospital Medical City" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals vacating an arbitration award and affirmed the circuit court's denial of the motion to vacate the arbitrator's award, holding that the court of appeals exceeded the statutory basis for vacating the award.After she purchased a home, Plaintiff initiated an arbitration proceeding against Defendants, the seller of the home as well as two real estate agents, seeking to recover damages or to rescind the purchase contract. The arbitrator concluded that Plaintiff could not, as a matter of law, prevail on her breach of contract and rescission claims. Plaintiff filed a petition seeking to vacate the arbitration decision pursuant to the provisions of Ky. Rev. Stat. 417.160. The circuit court denied the petition. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for a new arbitration. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers. View "Booth v. K&D Builders, Inc." on Justia Law

RECON filed suit against AECOM for damages related to AECOM's alleged failure to properly manage the construction project on which RECON worked as one of AECOM's subcontractors. After AECOM moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause contained in a separate contract (the Prime Agreement) between AECOM and the property owner, Shell, the trial court denied AECOM's motion.The Court of Appeal affirmed and concluded that, in the absence of a clear agreement to submit a dispute to arbitration, the court will not infer a waiver of a party's jury trial rights. The court explained that the subcontractor's incorporation of a voluminous contract containing an arbitration agreement between other parties was insufficient to subject RECON to arbitration of its claims against AECOM. Accordingly, AECOM has failed to establish the existence of an agreement to arbitrate RECON's claims. View "Remedial Construction Services, LP v. Aecom, Inc." on Justia Law