Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

A Montana limited liability company and its sole member obtained a $450,000 loan secured by real property from a lender affiliated with New York-based entities. The loan documents included a promissory note, guaranty, and deed of trust, all referencing the lender as Axos Bank, though the servicing and assignment of the loan eventually resided with the lender’s subsidiaries. The loan imposed a high annual interest rate, and after the company defaulted, the property was sold. The borrower alleges it paid more than twice the loan amount and asserts that the lender’s arrangement with Axos Bank was a scheme to avoid Montana’s usury laws.The borrowers sued in the Montana Eighteenth Judicial District Court, seeking, among other relief, a declaration that the lender—not Axos Bank—was the true lender and subject to Montana usury law. The lender moved to dismiss and compel arbitration under the arbitration provisions in the loan documents. The District Court considered extrinsic evidence, including the borrower’s declaration, and found that the arbitration provisions conflicted with bold, capitalized jury trial waiver language, resulting in ambiguity. The District Court determined that the borrower had not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived its constitutional right of access to the courts, denied the motion to compel arbitration, and the lender appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the District Court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration de novo. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the loan documents were ambiguous due to conflicting provisions regarding dispute resolution, and that such ambiguity prevented the borrower from giving the required knowing, voluntary, and intelligent consent to arbitrate and waive constitutional rights. As a result, the arbitration provisions were held unenforceable, and the District Court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration was affirmed. View "Bluebird v. World Business Lenders" on Justia Law

A steel subcontractor was hired to perform work for a university construction project and entered into a subcontract with the general contractor. The general contractor began defaulting on payments, prompting the subcontractor to notify the surety insurance company, which had issued a payment bond guaranteeing payment for labor, materials, and equipment. The surety made partial payment but disputed the remaining amount. The subcontractor then demanded arbitration against the contractor, with the surety notified and invited to participate. The contractor filed for bankruptcy and did not defend in arbitration, nor did the surety participate. The arbitrator awarded the subcontractor damages, including attorneys’ fees and interest, and the award was confirmed in court. The subcontractor sought to enforce the arbitration award against the surety, including attorneys’ fees and prejudgment interest, and also brought a bad faith claim under Pennsylvania’s insurance statute.The Centre County Court of Common Pleas initially excluded evidence of the arbitration award against the surety at trial and ruled the surety was not liable for attorneys’ fees or bad faith damages. A jury found for the subcontractor on the underlying debt, and the court awarded prejudgment interest at the statutory rate. Both parties appealed. The Superior Court held the arbitration award was binding and conclusive against the surety, who had notice and opportunity to participate, and affirmed liability for attorneys’ fees related to pursuing the contractor in arbitration. The court rejected the bad faith claim, holding the statute did not apply to surety bonds, and confirmed the statutory interest rate.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed in all respects. It held that Pennsylvania’s insurance bad faith statute does not apply to surety bonds, based on statutory language. The court also held that the surety is bound by the arbitration award against its principal, and is liable for attorneys’ fees incurred in arbitration and prejudgment interest at the statutory rate. View "Eastern Steel v. Int Fidelity Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Two individuals each purchased a Mercedes-Benz vehicle that included a subscription-based system called “mbrace,” which provided various features through a 3G wireless network. When newer cellular technology rendered the 3G-dependent system obsolete, both customers asked their dealerships to replace the outdated system at no charge, but their requests were denied. Subsequently, they filed a class action lawsuit against Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Mercedes-Benz Group AG, asserting claims including breach of warranty under federal and state law.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, considered Mercedes’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, based on the arbitration provision within the mbrace Terms of Service. The district court found in favor of Mercedes, concluding that the plaintiffs were bound by an agreement to arbitrate their claims. Since neither party requested a stay, the court dismissed the case without prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that they had not agreed to arbitrate.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. Applying Illinois contract law, the appellate court determined that Mercedes had provided sufficient notice of the arbitration agreement to the plaintiffs through the subscription activation process and follow-up communications. The court found that Mercedes established a rebuttable presumption of notice, which the plaintiffs failed to overcome, as they only stated they did not recall receiving such notice, rather than expressly denying it. The Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs had assented to the agreement by subscribing to the service and thus were bound by the arbitration provision. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Jim Rose v Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC" on Justia Law

A dispute arose following the acquisition of an online video game company, where the buyer agreed to pay a base purchase price with the possibility of an additional earnout payment if certain financial targets were met. The merger agreement included a provision requiring disputes over the calculation of this earnout to be resolved by a mutually agreed-upon accounting firm acting as an arbitrator. After closing, the seller representative alleged that the buyer acted in bad faith to reduce the earnout, failed to provide required information and access, and breached both express and implied contractual obligations. The buyer responded by invoking the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) clause and moved to compel arbitration.The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware granted the buyer’s motion, finding that the seller’s claims—including those alleging bad-faith conduct and denial of information access—were fundamentally disputes over the earnout calculation and thus fell within the scope of the ADR provision. The court held that questions about information access and related procedural matters were for the arbitrator to decide. The seller’s complaint was dismissed with prejudice, and the dispute proceeded to arbitration, where the arbitrator ruled in favor of the buyer. The Court of Chancery later confirmed the arbitrator’s award, rejecting the seller’s arguments regarding undisclosed conflicts of interest.The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reviewed the case. It affirmed the Court of Chancery’s judgment, holding that the bad-faith breach claims and the information-access claim were properly subject to arbitration under the agreement. The court found no error in the lower court’s refusal to vacate the arbitration award, concluding that the seller failed to demonstrate an undisclosed relationship that would indicate evident partiality. The Court of Chancery’s decisions to compel arbitration and to confirm the award were affirmed. View "Fortis Advisors LLC vs. Stillfront Midco AB" on Justia Law

Lanesborough 2000, LLC and Nextres, LLC entered into a loan agreement for the funding of a self-storage facility in Corning, New York. The deal included an arbitration agreement that required disputes to be resolved by binding arbitration. Lanesborough alleged that Nextres breached the agreement by failing to disburse loan funds as promised. An arbitrator found in favor of Lanesborough, awarding consequential damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees based on Nextres’s bad faith conduct. The arbitration agreement contained a waiver of the “right to appeal,” but did not specify its scope.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York partially confirmed the arbitrator’s awards. It confirmed the awards of consequential damages, declaratory relief, and attorney’s fees, finding that the fee award was permissible because it was based on a finding of bad faith. The District Court also granted Lanesborough’s requests for injunctive relief by ordering Nextres to comply with the loan agreement and enjoining Nextres from pursuing foreclosure actions, including a pending state court foreclosure against a related party. The District Court awarded Lanesborough post-award prejudgment interest and stayed enforcement of its judgment pending appeal.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit first held that the parties’ contractual waiver of the “right to appeal” was ambiguous and not sufficiently clear or unequivocal to preclude appellate review. On the merits, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s confirmation of the arbitrator’s awards and its grant of post-award prejudgment interest. However, it vacated the district court’s injunction barring the state-court foreclosure action because the lower court had not considered whether the injunction was consistent with the Anti-Injunction Act. The case was remanded for further proceedings on that issue. View "Lanesborough 2000, LLC v. Nextres, LLC" on Justia Law

Premium Healthcare Solutions, LLC, an Illinois company, had two competing judgment creditors: Vivek Bedi and MedLegal Solutions, Inc. Bedi obtained a state court judgment against “Premier Healthcare Solutions, LLC” in 2022, which was a misnomer for Premium. His lien on Premium’s assets was thus not discoverable to other creditors. MedLegal, a medical billing company, later secured an arbitration award and a federal court judgment against Premium in 2024 after discovering Premium had breached their contract. Both Bedi and MedLegal initiated collection efforts targeting Premium’s assets, particularly its accounts receivable managed by third parties.After Bedi discovered the misnomer in his judgment, he obtained a corrective order in Illinois state court in September 2024, amending his judgment nunc pro tunc to name Premium as the debtor and making the correction effective as of the original judgment date. Concerned that Bedi’s corrected judgment might threaten its priority, MedLegal sought a federal court order establishing its claim as superior. In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Bedi intervened but focused his opposition on jurisdictional grounds, invoking the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The district court rejected this argument and granted MedLegal’s motion for partial summary judgment, ruling MedLegal’s interest as superior. The court subsequently issued a turnover order requiring certain third parties to transfer Premium’s assets to MedLegal.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that appellate jurisdiction was proper because the February 11, 2025, turnover order was a final decision. The Seventh Circuit also found that Rooker-Feldman did not bar the district court’s jurisdiction, as MedLegal was not a party to the prior state court action. Finally, because Bedi failed to raise any substantive arguments on priority in the district court, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s turnover order in favor of MedLegal. View "Bedi v Premium Healthcare Solutions LLC" on Justia Law

An individual seeking to refinance his mortgage visited a website that offers mortgage information and referrals to affiliated lenders. During three separate visits, he entered personal information and clicked buttons labeled “Calculate” or “Calculate your FREE results.” Immediately below these buttons, the website displayed language in small font stating that clicking would constitute consent to the site’s Terms of Use, which included a mandatory arbitration provision and permission to be contacted by the site or affiliates. The Terms of Use were accessible via a hyperlinked phrase. After using the site, the individual was matched with a particular lender but did not pursue refinancing. Later, he received multiple unwanted calls from the lender and filed a class-action lawsuit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleging violations such as calling numbers on the Do Not Call registry.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan initially dismissed the complaint on the merits and denied the lender’s motion to compel arbitration as moot. Upon realizing the arbitration issue should have been decided first, the court reopened the case but found no enforceable agreement to arbitrate existed, denying the motion to compel arbitration. The court also denied reconsideration and allowed the plaintiff to amend his complaint. The lender appealed the denial of arbitration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the denial de novo. It held that, under California law, the website provided reasonably conspicuous notice that clicking the buttons would signify assent to the Terms of Use, including arbitration. The court found that the plaintiff’s conduct objectively manifested acceptance of the offer, forming a binding arbitration agreement. The court also concluded that the agreement was not invalid due to unspecified procedural details and that questions of arbitrability were delegated to the arbitrator. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings. View "Dahdah v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC" on Justia Law

A dispute arose from a contingency fee agreement between the heirs of an Alaska Native allotment and an attorney who helped them recover substantial compensation from the federal government for mismanagement of oil and gas leases on their land. After a settlement was reached, years later, one of the heirs was sued by the attorney in federal court for allegedly failing to make required payments under the fee agreement. The heir then invoked mandatory fee arbitration under Alaska Bar Association rules, which prompted the federal court to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of arbitration.The arbitration was conducted before an Alaska Bar Association panel, which, following guidance from Bar Counsel, limited its review to whether the amount of the attorney’s fee was reasonable, and declined to address broader challenges to the enforceability of the fee agreement, including claims of duress and illegality under federal Indian law. The panel ultimately found the fee amount reasonable. Dissatisfied, the heir petitioned the Alaska Superior Court to vacate the panel’s decision, arguing that the panel exceeded its authority by not deciding enforceability issues and raising other statutory grounds under the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (RUAA). The Superior Court denied the petition, confirmed the arbitration award, and granted enhanced attorney’s fees to the attorney for post-arbitration litigation.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska affirmed the Superior Court’s confirmation of the arbitration award. The Supreme Court held that a fee arbitration panel’s decision to narrow the scope of review is subject to a “reasonably possible” standard and that the panel did not exceed its authority in this case. The court also held that awards of attorney’s fees under Alaska Civil Rule 82 are permissible in post-arbitration proceedings governed by the RUAA and found no abuse of discretion in the Superior Court’s award. View "Oenga v. Givens" on Justia Law

The parties in this case entered into a settlement agreement in 2005 to resolve a longstanding water rights dispute between their respective parcels, providing that future disputes would be resolved by mediation and, if necessary, binding arbitration before a retired judge with water law expertise in San Diego County. The agreement included provisions for attorney fees for the prevailing party in certain circumstances. In 2016, a new dispute arose over groundwater resources and the parties proceeded to arbitration. During the arbitration, the arbitrator withdrew after Lodge filed demands for disqualification, leaving the dispute unresolved. While the Barbanell entities sought a replacement arbitrator, Lodge initiated a separate lawsuit asserting the same claims as those in arbitration. The Barbanell entities then filed a distinct action, petitioning the Superior Court of San Diego County to appoint a new arbitrator.The Superior Court of San Diego County granted the Barbanell entities’ petition to appoint a new arbitrator and entered judgment in their favor, designating them as prevailing parties entitled to seek attorney fees. Upon subsequent motion, the court found that the settlement agreement entitled the Barbanell entities to recover reasonable attorney fees incurred in obtaining the appointment of a new arbitrator, and awarded them $68,800 in fees. An amended judgment was issued to reflect this award.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed only the postjudgment award of attorney fees. It affirmed the Superior Court’s decision, holding that the Barbanell entities were prevailing parties in the discrete action to appoint an arbitrator and were entitled to attorney fees under the settlement agreement and Civil Code section 1717. The appellate court clarified that the presence of related claims pending elsewhere did not preclude a fee award for this separate, concluded action. View "Barbanell v. Lodge" on Justia Law

Several individuals who worked as waitstaff at a club operated by Benelux Corporation brought a lawsuit in 2024, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. In 2020, Benelux had distributed an arbitration agreement to its employees. The agreement included two signature boxes—one for the employee and one for Benelux’s representative—and stated that by signing, both parties represented that they had read and understood the agreement and agreed to be bound by its terms. One employee, Cadena, signed both signature boxes, but Benelux’s general manager did not sign the agreement due to an oversight.After being sued, Benelux moved to compel arbitration based on the unsigned agreement. Cadena argued that the agreement was not enforceable because Benelux had not signed it, stating she did not intend to be bound unless Benelux also signed. The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and denied Benelux’s motion to compel, finding that the agreement required signatures from both parties to be enforceable, and Benelux had not signed.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. Applying Texas contract law, the Fifth Circuit held that the language of the arbitration agreement clearly required signatures from both the employee and Benelux’s representative for the agreement to be enforceable. Because Benelux did not sign, there was no valid arbitration agreement between Benelux and Cadena. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment denying Benelux’s motion to compel arbitration. View "Mertens v. Benelux Corporation" on Justia Law