Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

Two individuals, each of whom held credit card debt with Goldman Sachs, filed for bankruptcy—one under Chapter 13 and the other under Chapter 7—in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia. After receiving notice of the bankruptcy filings, Goldman Sachs allegedly continued collection efforts on the debts, including repeated communications warning of adverse credit reporting. The debtors claimed these actions violated the automatic stay imposed by the Bankruptcy Code. They commenced an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k), seeking damages and injunctive relief, and proposed to represent a class of similarly situated individuals.Goldman Sachs responded by moving to compel arbitration of the debtors’ claims based on an arbitration clause in the credit card agreements, and sought to stay the adversary proceeding. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia denied Goldman Sachs’ motion, finding that the claim for a willful violation of the automatic stay was a core bankruptcy matter, and that enforcing arbitration would irreconcilably conflict with the purposes of the Bankruptcy Code. The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia affirmed, holding that arbitration would undermine the bankruptcy court’s authority to enforce the automatic stay and disrupt the centralized resolution of bankruptcy-related disputes.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. The Fourth Circuit held that compelling arbitration of a statutory and constitutionally core claim for violation of the automatic stay would conflict with the underlying purposes of the Bankruptcy Code, including centralization of claims, uniform enforcement, the debtor’s “fresh start,” and the specialized expertise of bankruptcy courts. The court concluded that under these circumstances, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to compel arbitration. View "Goldman Sachs Bank USA v. Brown" on Justia Law

A woman with dementia was admitted to a memory care facility, where her family warned staff about her tendency to wander and need for supervision. Three days after admission, she was found unattended in a courtyard on a 102-degree day, suffering from severe burns and heatstroke, ultimately dying days later. Her family, acting as successors in interest and individually, sued the facility for elder neglect, negligence, fraud, wrongful death, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Upon admission, her niece had signed an arbitration agreement on her behalf, which the family argued should not bind their individual claims or override their right to a jury trial.The Superior Court of Sacramento County considered the facility’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings. The court found a valid arbitration agreement existed for the decedent’s survivor claims but ruled that the agreement did not bind the family members' individual claims, as they were not parties to the agreement. The court also declined to compel arbitration of the survivor claims under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, subdivision (c), citing the risk of conflicting rulings if the family’s claims proceeded in court while survivor claims were arbitrated. The court further held that the agreement’s reference to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) did not expressly incorporate the FAA’s procedural provisions to preempt California law.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. It held that the arbitration agreement did not clearly and unmistakably delegate threshold issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator, and that the FAA’s procedural provisions were not expressly adopted by the agreement. Therefore, California law applied, and the trial court properly exercised its discretion to deny arbitration to avoid inconsistent rulings. The judgment was affirmed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs. View "Wright v. WellQuest Elk Grove" on Justia Law

Abdulkadir Abdisalam worked as a courier delivering medical supplies for a company that classified its couriers as independent contractors. To work for the company, Abdisalam was required to form his own corporation, Abdul Courier, LLC, which then entered into a contract with the company. This contract included an arbitration provision requiring disputes to be arbitrated. Abdisalam signed the contract as the owner of his corporation, not in his individual capacity. After several years of providing courier services, Abdisalam alleged that the company misclassified him and others as independent contractors and failed to pay them proper wages, in violation of Massachusetts law. He filed a lawsuit on behalf of himself and a proposed class of couriers seeking remedies under Massachusetts statutes.The company removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and filed a motion to compel arbitration based on the arbitration provision in its contract with Abdul Courier, LLC. The district court denied the motion, finding that Abdisalam, having signed only as the owner of the LLC and not in his personal capacity, was not bound by the contract’s arbitration clause. The court also rejected the company’s arguments that Abdisalam should be compelled to arbitrate under theories of direct benefits estoppel, intertwined claims estoppel, or as a successor in interest.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. The First Circuit held that, under Massachusetts law, it was for the court—not an arbitrator—to decide whether Abdisalam was bound by the arbitration agreement. The court further held that Abdisalam, as a nonsignatory to the agreement in his personal capacity, was not bound by its arbitration provision, and none of the equitable estoppel or successor theories advanced by the defendant provided a basis to compel arbitration. View "Abdisalam v. Strategic Delivery Solutions, LLC" on Justia Law

Brian Smith, through several companies he formed, was engaged in purchasing and developing property around Lake Martin. In March 2025, Smith and his companies initiated arbitration proceedings with the American Arbitration Association, asserting claims such as fraud and breach of contract against various individuals and entities involved in the land transactions. These respondents, who were involved in the transactions as real estate agents, agencies, a closing agency, and a consultant, had not signed the contracts containing the arbitration provisions at issue.In response, the individuals and entities named in the arbitration, now plaintiffs, filed a declaratory-judgment action in the Tallapoosa Circuit Court. They sought a judgment declaring there was no valid and enforceable agreement requiring them to arbitrate disputes with Smith and his companies and requested a stay of the arbitration. The defendants moved to compel arbitration based on provisions in the relevant land-sale contracts, arguing that even as nonsignatories, the plaintiffs were bound by the arbitration clauses due to equitable estoppel or because they were third-party beneficiaries. The defendants further contended that the question of arbitrability—whether the claims against the plaintiffs should be arbitrated—was itself a matter for the arbitrator, not the court, to decide. The circuit court disagreed, stayed the arbitration, and decided it would determine whether a valid arbitration agreement existed.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the matter and held that, under its precedent, when an arbitration provision contains a delegation clause or incorporates the AAA rules, the question of whether claims against nonsignatories are subject to arbitration must be decided by the arbitrator. The Court concluded the circuit court erred in staying the arbitration and in failing to compel arbitration. The Court reversed the circuit court’s order and remanded the case for entry of an order compelling arbitration. The petition for writ of mandamus was dismissed as moot. View "Ex parte Smith" on Justia Law

A business agreement was made in early 2020 for the rental of a yacht for an event. The agreement involved a payment of $18,280, which was to cover a deposit and a down payment toward the rental fee. The event was canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the party that made the payment requested a refund. The yacht provider did not return the funds. The party seeking the refund sued under several theories, including unjust enrichment and breach of contract.After mandatory arbitration resulted in an award for the plaintiff, the defendant requested a trial de novo, and the matter proceeded under Nevada’s Short Trial Program. A short trial judge rendered a proposed judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant objected to this proposed judgment, but the short trial judge, after consulting with the Alternative Dispute Resolution Office, ruled on the objection and later denied the defendant’s NRCP 59 motion to alter or amend the judgment, or for a new trial. The district court then entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, apparently approving the short trial judge’s proposed judgment.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada considered whether a short trial judge has authority to adjudicate objections to a proposed judgment and post-judgment NRCP 59 motions. The court held that under the plain language of NSTR 3(d), only the district court—not a short trial judge—may review and adjudicate objections to proposed judgments and NRCP 59 motions. The court found that the short trial judge exceeded her authority by ruling on these matters. The Supreme Court of Nevada vacated the district court’s judgment and the short trial judge’s post-judgment orders, remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "VEGAS AQUA, LLC VS. JUPITOR CORP." on Justia Law

Two individuals each owned companies that distributed snack foods for a larger food company. Years earlier, they had joined a class action lawsuit claiming that the company misclassified them as independent contractors rather than employees. That class action ended in a settlement, which included an optional provision: class members could agree to arbitrate future disputes in exchange for an additional payment. Both individuals opted into that provision and accepted the payment, thereby agreeing to resolve future disputes through arbitration.Several years later, the two individuals brought a new lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, again asserting claims related to alleged misclassification and seeking damages. The defendant company moved to stay the case and compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), citing the prior agreement. The plaintiffs opposed, arguing that they were exempt from the FAA as transportation workers under Section 1. The district court rejected that exemption argument, but did not order arbitration. Instead, it stayed and administratively closed the case without entering judgment, stating it was not compelling arbitration but was closing its doors to further proceedings.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s handling. The court held that, although the district court did not expressly deny the motion to compel arbitration, its actions amounted to a denial, and thus appellate jurisdiction existed under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(B). The First Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings, directing the district court to determine whether the motion to compel arbitration should be granted or denied and to explain its reasoning. The court also clarified that, under the parties’ agreement, any compelled arbitration must proceed on an individual, not class, basis. View "Perruzzi v. The Campbell's Company" on Justia Law

This case arises from multi-district litigation involving claims that certain aqueous film-forming foam products caused injuries, and that Illinois Union Insurance Company issued excess liability policies to BASF Corporation, which allegedly designed and sold components of those products. Plaintiffs, who originally filed their cases in Wisconsin state court, assert that Illinois Union is directly liable under Wisconsin law for BASF’s conduct. After removal to federal court, the cases were consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina under the multi-district litigation statute.The District Court for the District of South Carolina, managing the consolidated proceedings, had entered case management orders requiring motions either to be signed by lead counsel or, if not, to be preceded by a motion for leave of court. Illinois Union sought leave to file a motion to stay the proceedings against it pending arbitration, contending that its insurance policies required arbitration of the dispute. The district court denied Illinois Union’s motion for leave, first citing a failure to consult with lead counsel as required, but then acknowledging that consultation had ultimately occurred. The decisive reason for denial was that lead counsel did not consent to Illinois Union’s motion, and the district court ruled that, absent such consent, the motion could not be filed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s order. It held that, while district courts have broad discretion to manage multi-district litigation, they may not exercise this authority in a way that prevents a party from asserting its statutory right under the Federal Arbitration Act to seek a stay of litigation pending arbitration. Because the district court’s order effectively barred Illinois Union from filing its stay motion based on lack of lead counsel’s consent, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bouvet v. Illinois Union Insurance Company" on Justia Law

A former employee brought suit against his prior employer, alleging that the employer’s compensation plan for commissions violated several provisions of the California Labor Code. The employee claimed that the employer’s use of a “windfall” provision, which limited commission payments when revenue goals were substantially exceeded, resulted in retroactive reductions to earned commissions. The employer invoked this provision after the employee and others exceeded their sales goals, causing the employee’s final commission payment to be lower than anticipated. The employee resigned and later sought civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), as well as damages for alleged unpaid wages and other Labor Code violations.The Superior Court of Alameda County compelled arbitration of the employee’s individual claims but allowed the PAGA claims to proceed in court. During arbitration, the arbitrator found in favor of the employer on all individual claims, concluding that the compensation plan’s “windfall” provision did not violate the Labor Code sections at issue. The arbitrator determined that the commissions in question were not subject to the statutory requirements argued by the employee, and that the plan did not involve unlawful wage recapture or secret underpayment. The trial court confirmed the arbitration award, denied the employee’s motion for summary adjudication on the PAGA claim, and subsequently granted the employer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the arbitration resolved the issue of whether the employee was an “aggrieved employee” with standing under PAGA.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, affirmed the lower court’s judgment. The court held that the arbitration agreement was not illusory, that the arbitrator’s findings precluded the employee from maintaining PAGA standing, and that the employer’s commission plan did not violate the cited Labor Code provisions. The judgment in favor of the employer was affirmed. View "Sorokunov v. NetApp, Inc." on Justia Law

A financial advisor sold her company to a buyer, with a portion of the purchase price to be paid up front and the remainder in quarterly installments. When the buyer failed to make the scheduled payments, the seller initiated arbitration through the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), as required by their agreement. The arbitration panel found the buyer in default and awarded damages to the seller. The buyer then sought to vacate the arbitration award in the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, arguing that one of the arbitrators had “evident partiality” due to undisclosed past connections with the seller and her company.The circuit court reviewed the motion to vacate and applied the “evident partiality” standard as interpreted by the Fourth Circuit in ANR Coal Co., Inc. v. Cogentrix of N.C., Inc., and denied the motion, finding no clear evidence of bias. The buyer appealed to the Court of Appeals of Virginia, which affirmed the circuit court’s decision. The appellate court concluded that the arbitrator’s prior connections with the seller and her company were too remote and insubstantial to suggest partiality, and that the undisclosed interactions did not create an appearance of bias that would require vacatur of the award.The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed the case to clarify the standard for “evident partiality” under the Virginia Uniform Arbitration Act. The court held that, to vacate an arbitration award for evident partiality, a party must objectively show that a reasonable person, knowing all relevant facts, would perceive the arbitrator’s conduct as obvious bias against that party. Applying this standard, the Supreme Court of Virginia found that the arbitrator’s remote and inconsequential past connections did not meet this threshold. The court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded for further proceedings regarding attorney fees. View "Garofalo v. Di Vincenzo" on Justia Law

The plaintiff was employed as a legal assistant and later a paralegal in a law firm’s Liquor Group, initially at one firm and then at another firm, Adams and Reese, LLP, after her group switched employers. She alleged that a supervisor, who moved with the group, persistently directed sexualized comments and jokes at her in the workplace, which included derogatory remarks, inappropriate suggestions, and comments about her appearance and personal life. She also claimed that after her employer changed her work schedule, she experienced difficulties related to her disabilities and was subsequently terminated when she was unable to comply with the new attendance requirements. She brought claims of sexual harassment and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee reviewed the employer’s motions to dismiss the sexual harassment claim and to compel arbitration of the ADA claims, based on an arbitration agreement between the parties. The district court denied both motions, holding that the plaintiff sufficiently stated a plausible sexual harassment claim under applicable standards and that the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA) barred enforcement of the arbitration agreement as to her entire case, not just the sexual harassment claim.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the plaintiff’s complaint plausibly alleged pervasive sexual harassment sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. It further determined that the EFAA renders predispute arbitration agreements unenforceable with respect to an entire “case” relating to a sexual harassment dispute, not just the specific sexual harassment claim. Therefore, the arbitration agreement could not be enforced as to any of the plaintiff’s claims in this action. The disposition was to affirm and remand for further proceedings. View "Bruce v. Adams & Reese, LLP" on Justia Law