Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

Several former employees of a social media company were required, as part of their hiring process, to sign agreements mandating that any employment-related disputes be resolved through individual arbitration before a specified arbitral body. These agreements allowed employees to opt out within 30 days, but those who did not were bound to arbitrate disputes under the arbitral body’s rules. After being terminated, the employees initiated arbitration proceedings, but a dispute arose over who was responsible for paying the ongoing arbitration fees. The company argued for a pro-rata split based on the agreements, while the arbitral body, referencing its own rules and minimum standards (incorporated by reference into the agreements), required the company to pay all but the initial case management fees. The company refused to pay the full amount, citing a clause that fee disputes should be resolved by the arbitrator, not the arbitral body. As a result, the arbitral body stayed the proceedings, refusing to appoint arbitrators until the fees were paid.The employees then filed a petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking to compel the company to pay the fees under the Federal Arbitration Act, arguing that the company’s refusal constituted a failure to arbitrate. The district court agreed, holding that it had authority to compel the company to pay the fees as allocated by the arbitral body, and ordered the company to do so.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. The Second Circuit held that disputes over the payment of ongoing arbitration fees in the context of an ongoing arbitral proceeding are procedural matters for the arbitrator or arbitral body to resolve, not the courts. The court concluded that a party’s refusal to pay such fees does not constitute a “failure, neglect, or refusal to arbitrate” under 9 U.S.C. § 4, and therefore, the district court lacked authority to compel payment. The case was remanded with instructions to deny the petition. View "Frazier v. X Corp." 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

Brian Flores, a current NFL coach, brought a putative class action against the National Football League and several of its member clubs, including the Denver Broncos, New York Giants, and Houston Texans, alleging racial discrimination under federal, state, and local law. Flores’s claims stemmed from his interviews and employment experiences with these teams, during which he alleged discriminatory hiring practices. His employment contracts with various NFL teams incorporated the NFL Constitution, which contains a broad arbitration provision granting the NFL Commissioner authority to arbitrate disputes between coaches and member clubs.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration based on Flores’s employment agreements. The District Court granted the motion for claims against the Miami Dolphins, Arizona Cardinals, and Tennessee Titans, but denied it for Flores’s claims against the Broncos, Giants, Texans, and related claims against the NFL. The court found the NFL Constitution’s arbitration provision illusory and unenforceable under Massachusetts law, as it allowed unilateral modification by the NFL and lacked a signed agreement in one instance. The District Court also denied the defendants’ motion for reconsideration.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s orders. The Second Circuit held that the NFL Constitution’s arbitration provision, which vested unilateral substantive and procedural authority in the NFL Commissioner, did not qualify for protection under the Federal Arbitration Act and was unenforceable because it failed to guarantee Flores the ability to vindicate his statutory claims in an impartial arbitral forum. The court also affirmed the denial of the motion for reconsideration, concluding there was no abuse of discretion. View "Flores v. N.Y. Football Giants" 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

Petitioners-Appellants were on the losing end of an arbitration held in Geneva, Switzerland, which resulted in the award of a substantial monetary sum, declaratory relief, and costs and attorneys’ fees to Respondents-Appellees. In accordance with an agreement between the parties that New York courts would have exclusive jurisdiction over all matters concerning the arbitration, Petitioners-Appellants filed a petition to vacate the arbitral awards in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.The district court denied the petition, concluding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to vacate the Swiss-made awards under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”) because, in the district court’s view, the awards may only be vacated in the country where they were made, Switzerland.Petitioners-Appellants appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing that the New York Convention does not mandate that all vacatur proceedings take place in the country that produced an award and that the parties were free to contract for a non-Swiss forum to adjudicate issues arising from the arbitration.The Second Circuit concluded that the district court correctly determined that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the petition to vacate. The court explained that Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act endows a district court with subject-matter jurisdiction over “[a]n action or proceeding falling under the [New York] Convention.” However, the New York Convention primarily concerns the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in countries other than that in which an award was made. It does not contemplate a petition to vacate a foreign-made arbitral award. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Molecular Dynamics, Ltd. v. Spectrum Dynamics Med. Ltd." on Justia Law

The case involves insurance policies issued by certain surplus lines insurers at Lloyd’s, London, which contain identical arbitration clauses. The insured parties, 3131 Veterans Blvd LLC and Mpire Properties LLC, attempted to sue the insurers in Louisiana state court. The insurers then sued in New York federal court to enforce the arbitration clauses under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The insured parties argued that the arbitration clauses were unenforceable under Louisiana law, which prohibits such clauses in insurance contracts, and that the McCarran-Ferguson Act (MFA) allows state insurance laws to reverse preempt federal legislation and non-self-executing treaty provisions.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in favor of the insured parties, holding that Louisiana law prohibits arbitration clauses in insurance contracts and that the FAA and the New York Convention were reverse-preempted under the MFA, based on the Second Circuit’s previous decision in Stephens v. American International Insurance (Stephens I).The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that its reasoning in Stephens I had been undermined by the Supreme Court’s decision in Medellín v. Texas, which established a different test for determining whether a treaty provision is self-executing. Applying the Medellín test, the court found that Article II Section 3 of the New York Convention is self-executing. As a result, the court abrogated Stephens I to the extent that it held that Article II Section 3 is not self-executing, reversed the district court decisions, and remanded the matters for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, v. 3131 Veterans Blvd LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, representing a putative class, filed an antitrust lawsuit against Grubhub Inc., Postmates Inc., and Uber Technologies, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants"). The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and its state analogues by entering into no-price competition clauses (NPCCs) with restaurants, which prevented the restaurants from offering lower prices through other channels. The plaintiffs claimed that these NPCCs led to artificially high prices for restaurant meals. The class included customers who purchased takeout or delivery directly from restaurants subject to NPCCs, customers who dined in at such restaurants, and customers who used non-defendant platforms to purchase from these restaurants.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The court held that the scope of the arbitration clauses was an issue for the court to decide and that the clauses did not apply to the plaintiffs' claims as they lacked a nexus to the defendants' Terms of Use. The court also found that the plaintiffs had not agreed to Grubhub's Terms of Use.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision in part, ruling that the question of arbitrability for the plaintiffs' claims against Grubhub is for the court to decide and that Grubhub's arbitration clause does not apply to the plaintiffs' antitrust claims. However, the court reversed the district court's decision in part, finding that Grubhub had established an agreement to arbitrate with the plaintiffs and that the threshold question for the plaintiffs' claims against Uber and Postmates is for the arbitrator to decide. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Davitashvili v. Grubhub" on Justia Law

Xerox Corporation filed a petition under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) for injunctive and declaratory relief against Local 14A, Rochester Regional Joint Board, Xerographic Division Workers United (the Union). After the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Xerox and the Union expired, Xerox terminated retiree benefits. The Union argued that Xerox could not unilaterally terminate vested benefits and sought to enforce the expired agreement’s arbitration provision. Xerox sought to stay and enjoin arbitration.The United States District Court for the Western District of New York granted Xerox’s petition, concluding that the Union’s grievance was not arbitrable under the expired CBA. The district court reasoned that the Union failed to identify language in the agreement that could be understood to have promised vested benefits beyond the agreement’s expiration. Additionally, the reservation-of-rights clause in plan documents barred an interpretation that benefits had vested.On appeal, the Union argued that the district court erred. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed with the Union. The appellate court found that the Union identified language that could be reasonably understood as guaranteeing benefits beyond the contract’s expiration or as constituting deferred compensation. Furthermore, the reservation-of-rights clause in plan documents did not conclusively bar an interpretation that benefits had vested. To discern the parties’ intent, the appropriate trier of fact would need to consult extrinsic evidence.Accordingly, the Second Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Xerox Corporation v. Local 14A, Rochester Regional Joint Board, Xerographic Division Workers United" on Justia Law

CBF, appellants and award-creditors, challenged the district court's two judgments dismissing CBF's initial action to enforce and subsequent action to confirm a foreign arbitral award against appellees as alter-egos of the then defunct award-debtor. The court granted appellees' petition for rehearing for the limited purpose of vacating the original decision and simultaneously issuing this amended decision to correct the court's instructions to the district court with regards to the applicable law for an enforcement action at Section I.c., infra. In No. 15‐1133, the court held that the district court both (1) erred in determining that the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 201 et seq., require appellants to seek confirmation of a foreign arbitral award before the award may be enforced by a United States District Court and (2) erred in holding that appellants' fraud claims should be dismissed prior to discovery on the ground of issue preclusion as issue preclusion was an equitable doctrine and appellants plausibly alleged that appellees engaged in fraud. Therefore, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. In 15‐1146, the court held that the appeal of the judgment dismissing the action to confirm was moot and accordingly dismissed that appeal. View "CBF Industria De Gusa S/A v. AMCI Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

CBF, appellants and award-creditors, challenged the district court's two judgments dismissing CBF's initial action to enforce and subsequent action to confirm a foreign arbitral award against appellees as alter-egos of the then defunct award-debtor. The court held that the district court erred in determining that the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 201 et seq., require appellants to seek confirmation of a foreign arbitral award before the award may be enforced by a United States District Court, and in holding that appellants’ fraud claims should be dismissed prior to discovery on the ground of issue preclusion as issue preclusion is an equitable doctrine and appellants plausibly allege that appellees engaged in fraud. In No. 15-1133, the court vacated the dismissal of the action to enforce and remanded for further proceedings. In No. 15-1146, the court found the appeal of the district court's order in the action to conform is moot and dismissed the appeal. View "CBF Industria De Gusa S/A v. AMCI Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law