Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

Ryan Cunningham, Ronald LeGrand and four other individuals signed an operating agreement of Mountain Country Partners, LLC. Cunningham instituted a civil action seeking injunctive relief for the purpose of gaining operating control of the company. The case was stayed pending arbitration pursuant to the mandatory arbitration clause contained in the operating agreement. Legrand and Mountain Country filed five counterclaims against Cunningham. After a hearing, the arbitrator denied Cunningham’s claim and awarded relief against him based on Defendants’ counterclaims. The arbitrator ordered Cunningham to pay Mountain Country $113,717 in damages, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. Cunningham filed a motion to vacate the arbitration award, arguing that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law of West Virginia, improperly considered hearsay evidence, and refused to reopen the proceedings for rebuttal evidence. The circuit court denied Cunningham’s motion and confirmed the arbitration award. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Cunningham failed to identify any valid basis for setting aside the arbitration award. View "Cunningham v. LeGrand" on Justia Law

This appeal involved three different leases negotiated by Defendant between plaintiff-landowners and an oil and gas company. Each of the three leases engendered a different lawsuit against Defendant. In each case, Plaintiffs claimed that the nature of the services provided by Defendant constituted the unauthorized practice of law. Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ lawsuits and sought to compel Plaintiffs to participate in arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause in each lease. Plaintiffs challenged the arbitration clauses as void on the grounds that the arbitration clauses were contrary to public policy because they were procured through the unauthorized practice of law. In all three suits, the circuit court concluded that a plaintiff’s claim that a defendant engaged in the unauthorized practice of law can never, as a matter of matter of state law, be referred to arbitration. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that any state-based rule that prohibits outright the arbitration of a particular type of claim is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. View "Geological Assessment & Leasing v. O'Hara" on Justia Law

The complex issues at issue in these three consolidated appeals revolved around four overlapping leases to extract oil and gas from land owned by Plaintiff. Each lease contained an arbitration clause. Plaintiff filed the instant case against Defendants seeking a declaration as to which lease was controlling as to which defendants and seeking damages from Defendants. The circuit court entered an order voiding two of the four leases, addressing the substantive terms of two other leases, and compelling the parties to arbitrate any remaining claims by Plaintiff. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the circuit court (1) properly found the arbitration clause in one lease to be unenforceable and correctly ruled that the entire lease was unenforceable; (2) erred in compelling certain defendants to participate in arbitration under the terms of a second lease but did not err when it made findings of fact and conclusions of law that addressed the substance of Plaintiff’s claims regarding that lease; (3) erred in voiding a third lease, and its included arbitration clause, in violation the doctrine of severability; and (4) erred in its substantive rulings interpreting a fourth lease, as the court should have referred questions about the lease to arbitration. View "Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC v. Hickman" on Justia Law