Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

The dispute centers on insurance policies purchased by several Louisiana public entities, including the Town of Vinton, from a group of foreign and American insurers. The policies included an arbitration clause and a contract endorsement stating that each policy is a “separate contract” between the insured and each insurer. After alleged breaches, the insured entities sued all participating insurers in Louisiana state court. Subsequently, the insureds dismissed the foreign insurers with prejudice, leaving only American insurers as defendants.Following the dismissal of the foreign insurers, the remaining American insurers removed the cases to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. They sought to compel arbitration under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and the Federal Arbitration Act. The district court denied these motions, holding that the contract endorsement created separate agreements between each insurer and the insured, and, since the foreign insurers were no longer parties, no agreement involved a non-American party. The court also rejected the American insurers’ equitable estoppel argument, finding it precluded by Louisiana law, which expressly bars arbitration clauses in insurance contracts covering property in the state.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Fifth Circuit held that the Convention does not apply because no foreign party remains in any agreement to arbitrate. The court further concluded that Louisiana law prohibits enforcement of arbitration clauses in these insurance contracts and that equitable estoppel cannot override this prohibition. Lastly, the court determined that the delegation clause in the arbitration agreement could not be enforced because Louisiana law prevents the valid formation of an arbitration agreement in this context. View "Town of Vinton v. Indian Harbor" on Justia Law

Two neighbors in a residential community disagreed about a tree branch that obstructed one neighbor’s view. Jinshu Zhang, the owner seeking the view, used his homeowners association’s dispute resolution process, which included mediation and arbitration services provided by Charles Peterson, an independent mediator. When the association dismissed Zhang’s application, Zhang sued Peterson for breach of fiduciary duty, claiming Peterson was a director or officer of the association and thus owed him such a duty. However, Peterson was neither a director nor an officer, but an independent contractor. Zhang lost his lawsuit against Peterson following a nonsuit at trial, and did not appeal.After that case concluded, Peterson filed a malicious prosecution action against Zhang, alleging Zhang’s earlier suit was baseless and continued without probable cause once Zhang had evidence Peterson was not an officer or director. In response, Zhang filed a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16), seeking to dismiss Peterson’s malicious prosecution claim. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Zhang’s anti-SLAPP motion, finding Peterson’s case had at least minimal merit based on evidence showing Zhang lacked probable cause and may have acted with malice in pursuing the prior suit.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed Zhang’s appeal. The court affirmed the denial of Zhang’s anti-SLAPP motion, holding that the denial of a discretionary sanctions motion in the underlying suit did not establish probable cause under the “interim adverse judgment rule,” and did not bar the malicious prosecution claim. The court concluded that Peterson’s evidence on lack of probable cause and malice was sufficient to allow his case to proceed, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Peterson v. Zhang" on Justia Law

A dispute arose from the design and installation of cabinetry in a luxury home in Charleston, South Carolina. Design Gaps, Inc., owned by David and Eva Glover, had a longstanding business relationship with Shelter, LLC, a general contractor operated by Ryan and Jenny Butler. After being dissatisfied with Design Gaps’ performance, the homeowners, Dr. Jason and Kacie Highsmith, and Shelter terminated their contract with Design Gaps and hired Distinctive Design & Construction LLC, owned by Bryan and Wendy Reiss, to complete the work. The Highsmiths and Shelter initiated arbitration against Design Gaps, which led to the arbitrator ruling in favor of the homeowners and Shelter on their claims, and against Design Gaps on its counterclaims, including those for copyright infringement, tortious interference, and unfair trade practices.After the arbitration, Design Gaps sought to vacate the arbitration award in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, but the court instead confirmed the award. Concurrently, Design Gaps filed a separate federal lawsuit against several parties, including some who were not part of the arbitration. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that res judicata and collateral estoppel barred the new claims, or alternatively, that the claims failed on other grounds such as the statute of limitations and laches. The district court agreed, dismissing most claims based on preclusion or other legal bars, and granted summary judgment on the remaining claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decisions. The court held that res judicata and collateral estoppel applied to bar most of Design Gaps’ claims, even against parties not directly involved in the arbitration but in privity with those who were. For the remaining claims, the court found they were properly dismissed on grounds such as the statute of limitations, waiver, or laches. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in full. View "Design Gaps, Inc. v. Distinctive Design & Construction LLC" on Justia Law

A law firm sought to recover over $1.7 million in fees and costs for representing the Los Angeles County Sheriff, Alex Villanueva, and the Sheriff’s Department in litigation initiated by the County of Los Angeles. Due to a conflict of interest, the County’s Board of Supervisors offered Villanueva independent counsel, allowing him to select his attorney but reserving discretion over compensation. Villanueva chose the law firm, which entered into an engagement agreement with him. The County, however, sent its own retainer agreement to the firm, which the firm refused to sign. The firm continued its representation but was never paid. After the firm demanded arbitration under its engagement agreement, the County and related plaintiffs filed suit seeking a declaration that no valid agreement to arbitrate existed and an injunction against the arbitration.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted a preliminary injunction, then summary judgment for the County plaintiffs, finding the Sheriff lacked authority to enter into the engagement agreement. The court denied the law firm’s post-judgment motion for leave to file a cross-complaint, citing both untimeliness and bad faith. The firm then filed a separate lawsuit against the County and related defendants, asserting breach of contract and related claims. The trial court sustained the County’s demurrer, dismissing the complaint with prejudice on grounds that the claims were compulsory cross-claims in the earlier action and for failure to allege compliance with the Government Claims Act.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, affirmed both the judgment in the County’s action and the dismissal of the law firm’s separate lawsuit. The court held that the Sheriff did not have authority to retain counsel on his own; only the Board of Supervisors could contract for legal services. The law firm’s claims were barred as compulsory cross-claims and for failure to comply with the Government Claims Act. View "County of Los Angeles v. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP" on Justia Law

Puerto Rico Telephone Company (PRTC) sought to confirm an arbitration award against WorldNet Telecommunications in federal court under section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). PRTC relied on then-existing First Circuit precedent, which allowed federal courts to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over such applications if the underlying dispute involved a federal question. After the district court dismissed PRTC’s action for lack of Article III standing, PRTC appealed.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico dismissed the case, finding that PRTC had not shown the necessary injury-in-fact to establish standing under Article III of the Constitution. PRTC then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. While the appeal was pending, the United States Supreme Court decided Badgerow v. Walters, which held that federal courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over applications to confirm or vacate arbitration awards under sections 9 and 10 of the FAA, except in circumstances not present in this case. PRTC requested that the First Circuit vacate the district court’s judgment and direct dismissal without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, so that PRTC could pursue relief in the Commonwealth courts. WorldNet argued that the First Circuit should instead affirm the district court’s dismissal on standing grounds.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that, in light of Badgerow v. Walters, federal courts do not have subject-matter jurisdiction over PRTC’s application to confirm the arbitration award under section 9 of the FAA. The First Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court did not address the standing issue. View "Puerto Rico Telephone Co. v. Worldnet Telecommunications, LLC" on Justia Law

A group of plaintiffs, including a medical practice, individual physicians, a medical society, and two patients, brought various claims against a health insurer, alleging that the insurer interfered with doctor-patient relationships, denied or delayed coverage for medical services, and caused significant harm to patients. The claims included tortious interference with contractual rights, unfair competition, RICO violations, and emotional distress, with specific factual allegations that the insurer’s actions led to worsened medical outcomes for the patients involved.The Circuit Court of the Third Circuit reviewed the insurer’s motion to compel arbitration based on arbitration clauses in provider agreements and member handbooks. Instead of determining whether the claims were subject to arbitration, the circuit court focused on the alleged unconscionability of the contracts as a whole, finding them to be contracts of adhesion and unconscionable, and denied the motion to compel arbitration. The court also denied summary judgment as to one patient’s claims and did not stay the medical society’s claims pending arbitration.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi reviewed the case and held that the circuit court erred by not following the required analytical framework for arbitrability. The Supreme Court vacated the lower court’s order in part, holding that claims arising under the Participating Physician Agreement must be referred to arbitration because the agreement delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Claims under the Medicare and QUEST Agreements were also subject to arbitration, as the arbitration clauses were not shown to be substantively unconscionable. However, the Court held that the claims of one patient and the physician as a patient were not subject to mandatory arbitration, and another patient’s claims were not subject to a grievance and appeals clause. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "Frederick A. Nitta, M.D., Inc. v. Hawaii Medical Service Association." on Justia Law

The founder and former CEO of a national pizza company brought suit against a public relations firm that had previously provided services to the company. The dispute arose after the plaintiff alleged that the firm leaked confidential and damaging information about him to the press, in violation of a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) that included an arbitration clause. The NDA was executed after the company requested the firm sign it, anticipating close work with the plaintiff during a period of reputational crisis. The relationship between the parties deteriorated following a conference call in which the plaintiff made controversial remarks, which were later reported in the media, leading to his resignation from the company’s board.The case was initially filed in state court and then removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. Over several years, the litigation involved multiple amended complaints, extensive discovery, and dispositive motions. The defendant did not move to compel arbitration until after the district court denied summary judgment on the NDA claim. The district court held a bench trial and found that the NDA was enforceable and contained a binding arbitration provision. However, the court concluded that the defendant had defaulted on its right to arbitrate by actively litigating the case for years before seeking arbitration, and thus denied the motion to compel arbitration.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s contract formation ruling but had jurisdiction to review the default determination. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the defendant defaulted on its arbitration rights by seeking a merits resolution in court before moving to compel arbitration. The court dismissed the appeal in part for lack of jurisdiction, otherwise affirmed the district court’s judgment, and denied the plaintiff’s request for sanctions. View "Schnatter v. 247 Group, LLC" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between two companies, one a contractor and the other a developer, over a construction project in Maui. The disagreement was submitted to binding arbitration, resulting in an award in favor of the developer. The developer sought to confirm the award in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, but the contractor challenged the award, alleging the arbitrator was evidently partial due to undisclosed relationships. The circuit court initially confirmed the award, but on appeal, the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing on the partiality claim. After the hearing, the circuit court found evident partiality, denied confirmation, vacated the award, and ordered a rehearing before a new arbitrator.Following this, the contractor moved for taxation of costs incurred on appeal, which the circuit court granted. The developer sought to appeal the costs order, but the circuit court denied an interlocutory appeal. A new arbitration was held, again resulting in an award for the developer, which was confirmed in a new special proceeding with a final judgment entered. The developer then appealed the earlier costs order from the first special proceeding.The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) dismissed the appeal as untimely, reasoning that the circuit court’s order vacating the first arbitration award and ordering a rehearing was an appealable final order under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 658A-28(a)(3), making the subsequent costs order also immediately appealable.The Supreme Court of Hawai‘i reviewed the case and held that an order vacating an arbitration award and directing a rehearing is not an appealable order under HRS § 658A-28(a). The court clarified that such orders lack finality, regardless of whether the rehearing is full or partial, and reaffirmed the majority rule previously adopted in State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers (SHOPO) v. County of Kauai. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA’s dismissal and remanded the case for entry of a final judgment, so the merits of the appeal could be addressed. View "Nordic PCL Construction, Inc. v. LPIHGC, LLC" on Justia Law

In the 1950s, Goodrich Corporation built a vinyl-manufacturing complex in Calvert City, Kentucky, and used unlined ponds for hazardous waste disposal. In 1988, the EPA declared the site a Superfund site. Goodrich sold the complex to Westlake Vinyls, Inc. in the 1990s, agreeing to cover future cleanup costs. In 2000, PolyOne Corporation (now Avient Corporation) assumed Goodrich’s responsibilities. Disputes arose over cleanup costs, leading to a 2007 settlement agreement that included arbitration provisions for future cost allocations.The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky previously reviewed the case. Avient had twice sought arbitration under the agreement, first in 2010 and again in 2017. In 2018, Avient challenged the arbitration provisions' validity, but the district court held that Avient had waived this argument by initiating arbitration. The court enforced the arbitration award, and Avient did not challenge this decision. In 2022, Westlake demanded arbitration, and Avient again claimed the arbitration provisions were invalid. The district court granted summary judgment to Westlake, holding that Avient’s challenge was waived and barred by res judicata and judicial estoppel.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment but on different grounds. The court held that the settlement agreement’s provision for de novo judicial review of arbitration awards was invalid under the Federal Arbitration Act, as established in Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc. However, the court found that this invalid provision could be severed from the agreement without affecting the economic and legal substance of the transactions contemplated by the parties. Therefore, the arbitration provisions remained valid and enforceable. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Avient Corp. v. Westlake Vinyls, Inc." on Justia Law

Rajesh Patel filed for bankruptcy in 2016, which triggered an automatic stay on all creditor actions against him. Despite this, Patel participated in an arbitration proceeding and lost. After a state court affirmed the arbitration award, Patel sought to stay the enforcement of the award in bankruptcy court, arguing that the arbitration violated the automatic stay. The bankruptcy court annulled the stay, finding that Patel had engaged in gamesmanship by participating in the arbitration without raising the stay and then attempting to use it to void the unfavorable outcome.The bankruptcy court's decision was appealed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's annulment of the stay, rejecting Patel's argument that the annulment was contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Acevedo Feliciano. The district court found that Acevedo, which dealt with the jurisdiction of a district court after a case was removed to federal court, did not affect the bankruptcy court's statutory authority to annul the automatic stay for cause.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The Eleventh Circuit held that the bankruptcy court had the authority under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) to annul the automatic stay for cause. The court distinguished the case from Acevedo, noting that Acevedo addressed the removal jurisdiction of a district court and did not impact the bankruptcy court's power to annul a stay. The court also rejected Patel's procedural objections, finding that any error in the process was harmless as Patel had sufficient notice and opportunity to oppose the requested relief. View "Patel v. Patel" on Justia Law