Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

Neil Maune and Marcus Raichle formed a general partnership known as the Maune Raichle Law Firm, which later took out life insurance policies for each partner, naming the partnership as beneficiary. In 2011, Maune, Raichle, and three others established a new law firm, MRHFM, governed by an operating agreement containing an arbitration clause and a delegation provision referencing the American Arbitration Association rules. MRHFM took over premium payments for the life insurance policies, but only Raichle’s policy was amended to name MRHFM as beneficiary. After Maune’s death, the death benefit from his policy was paid to the original partnership, not MRHFM. The Estate of Neil Maune sued Raichle and the partnership, alleging wrongful retention of the insurance proceeds, tortious interference, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty.The Circuit Court of St. Louis County denied the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that the partnership was not a party to the operating agreement and thus could not enforce its arbitration provision. The Estate argued that Maune and Raichle signed the agreement only as members and managers of MRHFM, not as partners of the original partnership, and that the claims did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the case de novo and held that, under Missouri’s aggregate theory of partnerships, the partnership has no legal existence separate from its partners. Because Maune and Raichle were the only partners and signed the operating agreement in their individual capacities, they bound themselves and the partnership to the arbitration agreement. The Court further held that, due to the delegation provision, questions about the scope of the arbitration agreement must be decided by the arbitrator. The Supreme Court of Missouri vacated the circuit court’s order and remanded with instructions to compel arbitration. View "Maune vs. Raichle" on Justia Law

An attorney with over two decades of experience brought suit against an insurance company and its agent after his life insurance policy lapsed due to a missed payment. He claimed to have cured the lapse by paying the overdue premium and submitting required information, and alleged that the insurer confirmed reinstatement before later refunding his payment and rescinding the reinstatement. The insurer denied ever reinstating the policy and asserted it had expired by its own terms. The attorney filed suit in state court, alleging breach of contract and other claims. After removal to federal court, the parties mediated and signed a settlement memorandum outlining five essential terms, including a $10,000 payment to the plaintiff and mutual releases. The memorandum stated that final settlement language would use standard contractual terms.After mediation, the plaintiff refused to sign the draft settlement agreement, objecting to a non-reliance clause he claimed was not discussed during mediation. He also began raising new questions about the status of his insurance policy. He moved to vacate the settlement and sought further discovery, while the defendants moved to enforce the settlement. The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri held an evidentiary hearing, which the plaintiff missed, and then granted the defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement and denied the plaintiff’s motions. The plaintiff’s motion for rehearing was also denied.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the settlement memorandum contained all essential terms and that the non-reliance clause in the draft agreement was standard language, not a material new term. The court found no clear error in the district court’s factual findings and no abuse of discretion in denying a new hearing. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment enforcing the settlement. View "Schlecht v. Goldman" 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

Ultra Group of Companies and Prince and Prince, LLC entered into a contract regarding the placement and operation of Ultra’s coin-operated amusement machines on Prince’s premises. A dispute arose between the parties, leading to arbitration before a Georgia Lottery Corporation (GLC) hearing officer. On July 30, 2021, the hearing officer issued an “Interim Award” that resolved most substantive contract issues in favor of Prince but left claims for fees and costs unresolved. On September 17, 2021, the hearing officer issued a “Final Award” that incorporated the Interim Award, split arbitration costs, and awarded attorney fees to Ultra. The parties received the Final Award on October 4, 2021.Ultra filed a “Request for Reconsideration and Motion for Review” with the GLC’s chief executive officer (CEO) on October 14, 2021, which was denied by operation of GLC rules after 30 days without a ruling. On December 10, 2021, Ultra filed a timely petition for certiorari to the Superior Court of Fulton County. Prince moved to dismiss, arguing Ultra failed to preserve its appeal rights by not seeking review of the Interim Award within 10 days. The Superior Court of Fulton County agreed and dismissed Ultra’s petition. Ultra appealed to the Court of Appeals of Georgia, which affirmed the dismissal without opinion. Ultra’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and Ultra petitioned the Supreme Court of Georgia for certiorari.The Supreme Court of Georgia held that only the Final Award constituted an appealable order under the GLC’s rules, as it resolved all issues presented in the arbitration. Ultra’s appeal from the Final Award was timely, and the lower courts erred in dismissing the appeal. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. View "Ultra Group of Companies, Inc. v. Prince and Prince, 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

Karl and Tonya Williams contracted with Whitson Builders, LLC to purchase a custom modular home manufactured by Franklin Structures, LLC. The sales contract specified that Franklin would provide all warranties for the home, and Whitson would assemble it on the Williamses’ property. After moving in, the Williamses experienced significant issues with the home’s construction and alleged that Franklin and Whitson failed to properly repair these defects despite multiple requests. The Williamses subsequently filed suit in Baldwin Circuit Court against Franklin, Whitson, and other parties, asserting claims including breach of contract, fraud, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranties.In Baldwin Circuit Court, Franklin moved to compel arbitration based on a provision in its homeowner’s manual, which required disputes to be submitted first to nonbinding mediation and, if unresolved, to binding arbitration. Franklin argued that the Williamses were bound by this provision because they had accepted warranty services and asserted express-warranty claims. The Williamses opposed, contending they never received or signed the manual containing the arbitration clause and did not assent to its terms. The trial court denied Franklin’s motion to compel arbitration in part.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the trial court’s denial de novo. The Court held that the Williamses were contractually bound by the arbitration provision in Franklin’s warranty because they accepted warranty services and asserted express-warranty claims, following precedent from Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Ard. The Court found that the trial court erred by not compelling mediation and, if necessary, arbitration as required by the warranty’s terms. The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the case for entry of an order consistent with the arbitration provision. View "Franklin Structures, LLC v. Williams" on Justia Law

Joanne Sudakow entered into a contract with CleanChoice Energy, Inc. to purchase electricity. The initial agreement, which she accepted in October 2021, did not include an arbitration clause and specified that New York would be the exclusive venue for any lawsuits. About three weeks after the contract was executed, CleanChoice sent Sudakow a “Welcome Package” containing new terms, including an arbitration provision, but Sudakow did not sign or otherwise expressly assent to these new terms. She continued to pay for her electricity service until she terminated it in August 2022.Sudakow later filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging breach of contract and deceptive business practices by CleanChoice. CleanChoice moved to compel arbitration based on the arbitration provision in the subsequently mailed terms. The district court denied the motion, finding that Sudakow did not have sufficient notice of the arbitration provision and had not assented to it.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration de novo. The Second Circuit held that Sudakow was not bound by the arbitration provision because CleanChoice failed to provide clear and conspicuous notice of the new terms, and a reasonable person would not have understood that making payments constituted assent to those terms. The court also found that the language of the subsequent terms indicated that a signature was required for assent, which Sudakow never provided. Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment denying CleanChoice’s motion to compel arbitration. View "Sudakow v. CleanChoice Energy, Inc." 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

Michael Lindell, a Minnesota entrepreneur, challenged the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election, claiming to have data proving Chinese interference. Lindell Management LLC (LMC) hosted a "Cyber Symposium" in August 2021, offering a $5 million reward to anyone who could prove the data provided was not from the November 2020 election. Robert Zeidman, a software developer, participated in the challenge, reviewed the data, and concluded it did not contain any information related to the election. The challenge judges disagreed and denied his claim.Zeidman filed for arbitration, and the arbitration panel unanimously found in his favor, ordering LMC to pay the $5 million reward. The panel determined that the contract required participants to prove the data was not related to the election and that Zeidman had met this burden. Zeidman then moved to confirm the arbitration award in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, while LMC sought to vacate it. The district court confirmed the panel's decision, finding that the panel had arguably interpreted and applied the contract.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the arbitration panel had exceeded its authority by using extrinsic evidence to interpret the unambiguous contract terms. The court held that the panel effectively amended the contract by requiring the data to be packet capture data, which violated Minnesota contract law and arbitration precedents. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case with directions to grant LMC's motion to vacate the arbitration award. View "Zeidman v. Lindell Management LLC" on Justia Law