Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

Matthew Goforth, through MG Management Co., LLC, entered a dealer agreement with Sears Authorized Home Stores that included a broad non-compete provision, extending restrictions to his spouse, Malinda Goforth. After Matt decided not to renew the agreement, Sears suspected the Goforths would open a competing business and initiated arbitration, seeking to enforce the non-compete. The Goforths opposed enforcement, asserting the provision was unreasonable. The arbitrator initially denied emergency injunctive relief but later, upon learning that Matt and Malinda were opening Goforth Home & Lawn, granted interim relief enforcing the non-compete and added Malinda and her company as parties. A final arbitration award enforced the non-compete, but an appellate arbitrator later held the provision unenforceable while affirming attorneys’ fees to Sears. Subsequently, the Goforths initiated a second arbitration alleging antitrust violations, but the arbitrator determined their antitrust claims were compulsory counterclaims that should have been brought in the first arbitration.Following Sears’s bankruptcy, the Goforths brought an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri against Sears’s owners, Transform Holdco, LLC and affiliates, asserting the same antitrust claims. Transform moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were compulsory counterclaims barred by their failure to raise them in the initial arbitration. The district court agreed, holding the claims accrued upon Sears’s initiation of the first arbitration and were thus subject to compulsory counterclaim rules. The court granted summary judgment for Transform and did not address alternative grounds or the Goforths’ partial summary judgment motion.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Eighth Circuit held that the Goforths’ antitrust claims accrued when Sears initiated the first arbitration, making them compulsory counterclaims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13. The court also held that Malinda and her company were bound by the agreement’s arbitration provision. View "Goforth v. Transform Holdco, LLC" on Justia Law

A group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi, alleging misuse, misappropriation, and conflicts of interest related to an investment in Mockingbird Cannabis LLC, a medical marijuana manufacturer. The case was initially assigned to Judge Debra Gibbs. Before the defendants were served, one defendant, Millette, filed motions to compel arbitration, to dismiss the case, and to stay proceedings. The plaintiffs responded and also sought leave to file an amended complaint that expanded the number of parties and clarified their claims.Subsequently, without a hearing, a specially appointed judge, Barry Ford, granted the plaintiffs’ motion to amend. Millette questioned Judge Ford’s authority to act in the case, arguing that Ford’s appointment was limited to cases pending as of a prior administrative order dated February 21, 2024, and this case was filed after that date. Millette opposed the reassignment and sought appellate review, raising the issue of the judge’s authority to issue orders in this matter.The Supreme Court of Mississippi considered whether Judge Ford was properly authorized to act in the case. The Court examined the language of the appointment order and relevant statutory provisions, concluding that Judge Ford’s authority was limited to cases pending as of February 21, 2024, and did not extend to this case, which was filed later. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the actions taken by Judge Ford and remanded the case to proceed before the originally assigned circuit-court judge. The Court further held that remaining issues raised on appeal were moot in light of this disposition. View "Millette v. Burger" on Justia Law

Two brothers, who are co-founders, directors, and major shareholders of a company, were involved in a business arrangement with a venture capital investor who was also a director and significant shareholder in the same company. The parties executed two option agreements and a partnership agreement related to the creation of a venture capital fund, which was to be capitalized with company shares. The brothers signed option agreements giving a corporate entity managed by the investor the right to acquire a portion of their shares. These agreements were twice amended, with the second amendment doubling the shares to be transferred—an action the brothers allege was done without their knowledge. Separately, a partnership agreement established the venture fund as a limited partnership under Delaware law, with all partners being corporate entities associated with the brothers and/or the investor. The partnership agreement included an arbitration clause governed by JAMS rules.When the investor’s entity tried to exercise its right to purchase shares, the brothers refused, disputing the validity of the second amendment. The investor and his entities initiated arbitration under the partnership agreement, prompting the brothers to sue for injunctions to stop arbitration. The defendants responded by moving to compel arbitration. The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied all motions, including the motion to compel arbitration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the denial de novo. It held that the district court properly decided the question of arbitrability because the brothers, as non-signatories to the partnership agreement, were not bound by its arbitration clause. The appellate court further found that principles of equitable estoppel and agency law under Delaware law did not require the brothers to arbitrate, as they had not directly benefited from the agreement nor acted as agents of the signatories. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. View "Schlacks v. Chheda" 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

Lackie Drug Store, Inc. filed a putative class action against OptumRx, Inc. and other pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), alleging violations of several Arkansas statutes due to the PBMs' failure to disclose, update, and notify pharmacies of changes to their Maximum Allowable Cost (MAC) lists. Lackie claimed this resulted in under-reimbursement for prescriptions. The case was initially filed in Arkansas state court and later removed to federal court. Lackie amended its complaint to include five claims, and OptumRx moved to dismiss the complaint on various grounds, including failure to state a claim and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed two of Lackie's claims but retained three. The court also denied OptumRx's motion to dismiss based on the argument that Lackie failed to comply with pre-dispute procedures outlined in the Network Agreement. OptumRx later filed an answer and participated in discovery. After Lackie amended its complaint again, adding two new claims and tailoring the class definition to OptumRx, OptumRx moved to compel arbitration based on the Provider Manual's arbitration clause.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that OptumRx waived its right to compel arbitration for the original three claims by substantially invoking the litigation machinery before asserting its arbitration right. However, the court found that OptumRx did not waive its right to compel arbitration for the two new claims added in the amended complaint. The court also held that the district court erred in addressing the arbitrability of the new claims because the Provider Manual included a delegation clause requiring an arbitrator to decide arbitrability issues.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case with instructions to grant OptumRx's motion to compel arbitration for the two new claims. View "Lackie Drug Store, Inc. v. OptumRx, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves plaintiffs-appellees, trustees of the Peter and Elizabeth C. Tower Foundation, who brought claims against UBS Financial Services, Inc. and Jay S. Blair (collectively, the "UBS Defendants") under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and New York state law. The plaintiffs allege that the UBS Defendants breached their fiduciary duties in managing the Foundation's investment advisory accounts. Specifically, they claim that John N. Blair, the father of Jay Blair, improperly used his position to place the Foundation’s assets with his son's investment firm, which later became affiliated with UBS.The United States District Court for the Western District of New York denied the UBS Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The court found that the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to question the validity of the arbitration agreement, warranting a trial on that issue. The UBS Defendants had previously moved to stay or dismiss the action under the Colorado River abstention doctrine, which was also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court applied the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., which held that courts may not impose a prejudice requirement when evaluating whether a party has waived enforcement of an arbitration agreement. The Second Circuit concluded that the UBS Defendants waived their right to compel arbitration by seeking a resolution of their dispute in the District Court first, thus acting inconsistently with the right to arbitrate. Consequently, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of the UBS Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration on the alternative ground of waiver. View "Doyle v. UBS Financial Services, Inc." on Justia Law

Stephen Hofer, a licensed attorney and founder of Aerlex Law Group, hired Vicky Boladian as a part-time contract attorney in 2008. In 2013, they formed Aerlex Tax Services, LLC (tax LLC) to provide tax-related services. Hofer held a 55% equity interest, and Boladian held 45%. Their relationship deteriorated in 2017-2018, leading to litigation. In 2020, they settled by executing three agreements, each containing arbitration clauses. In 2023, they dissolved the tax LLC and transferred its assets to Aerlex Tax Services, LLP (tax LLP). Boladian later withdrew, forming her own firm and taking clients and assets.The plaintiffs, including Hofer and the tax LLP, filed a lawsuit against Boladian and her new firm, alleging 13 causes of action and seeking various damages and relief. They did not mention arbitration in their complaint. They sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, both of which were denied. They also engaged in extensive discovery and demanded a jury trial. Boladian and her firm filed a cross-complaint, and three days later, the plaintiffs moved to compel arbitration.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied the motion to compel arbitration, finding that the plaintiffs had waived their right to arbitration by substantially litigating the case in court for over six months. The court applied the waiver standard from St. Agnes Medical Center v. PacifiCare of California, which was later overruled by the California Supreme Court in Quach v. California Commerce Club, Inc.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case de novo under the new standard set by Quach. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had waived their right to compel arbitration by engaging in extensive litigation conduct inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate. The order denying the motion to compel arbitration was affirmed. View "Hofer v. Boladian" on Justia Law

Defendants, alleged victims of a Ponzi scheme perpetrated by John Woods, sought to bring claims against Woods's employer, Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., in a FINRA arbitration forum. Defendants claimed they were customers of Oppenheimer because they transacted with Woods, an associated person of Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer filed a federal action seeking a declaration that Defendants were not its customers and a permanent injunction to prevent arbitration.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted summary judgment in favor of Oppenheimer, concluding that Defendants were not customers of Oppenheimer or Woods. The court found that Defendants had no direct relationship with Oppenheimer and that their investments were facilitated by Michael Mooney, not Woods. The court also issued a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from arbitrating their claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit held that a "customer" under FINRA Rule 12200 includes any non-broker and non-dealer who purchases commodities or services from a FINRA member or its associated person. However, the court agreed with the district court that Defendants did not transact with Woods, as their investments were facilitated by Mooney. The court also rejected Defendants' "alter ego" theory, which suggested that their investments in an entity controlled by Woods made them Woods's customers.The Ninth Circuit concluded that Defendants were not entitled to arbitrate their claims against Oppenheimer under FINRA Rule 12200 and upheld the permanent injunction. The court found no errors in the district court's analysis or factual findings and affirmed the decision in full. View "OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC. V. MITCHELL" on Justia Law

Overhead Door Company of Indianapolis contracted with Blue Giant Equipment Corporation, a Canadian company, for the purchase of multiple dock levelers. After installation, Overhead experienced issues with the levelers and sued Blue Giant in federal court under diversity jurisdiction for breach of contract and warranty. Blue Giant moved to dismiss, citing a provision in its standard terms requiring arbitration in Ontario, Canada. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the standard terms were not incorporated into the parties' contract.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana reviewed the case and denied Blue Giant's motion to dismiss. The court found that the mere reference to standard terms on a website was insufficient to incorporate those terms into the contract between Overhead and Blue Giant. Blue Giant appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Blue Giant's reference to its Terms and Conditions on its website was sufficient to incorporate those terms into the contract. The court noted that the reference was conspicuous and provided Overhead with reasonable opportunity to take notice of the terms. The court concluded that the parties were obligated to resolve their dispute through arbitration in Ontario, Canada, as specified in the incorporated terms. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Garage Door Systems, LLC v Blue Giant Equipment Corp." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute among members of several limited liability companies, which was arbitrated according to the parties' agreement. The arbitrator issued a series of awards, ultimately granting plaintiff Laurence Rappaport $4.9 million on various claims, offset by an award to defendant Kenneth Pasternak, resulting in a net award of approximately $3.8 million. The arbitrator did not award Rappaport damages for the loss of future distributions of carried interest. Rappaport contended that the issue of carried interest was not presented to the arbitrator and that the arbitrator improperly ruled on it.The Chancery Division confirmed the arbitrator's awards after remanding for clarification that the arbitrator intended to resolve the issue of carried interest. Rappaport appealed, and the Appellate Division affirmed the awards for Rappaport’s claims for lost income and future income based on his termination as a manager. However, the Appellate Division ruled that the parties had excluded the question of carried interest from the arbitration and concluded that the arbitrator had raised the issue sua sponte. It modified the awards to exclude any inclusion of Rappaport’s membership interest, including future carried interest, and reversed the Chancery Division’s judgment.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and disagreed with the Appellate Division’s conclusion. The Court found that the issue of carried interest was arbitrable and had been raised by the parties at several stages of the arbitration. The Court held that the remedy of modification under N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-24(a)(2) was not warranted and that the Appellate Division’s review did not conform to the deferential standard governing judicial review of arbitration awards. The Court reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment and reinstated the Chancery Division’s decision confirming the arbitration award. View "Rappaport v. Pasternak" on Justia Law