Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

A former employee brought suit against her previous employer and associated fiduciaries, alleging that they mismanaged the employer's retirement savings plan, which is a defined contribution plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). She claimed that the fiduciaries retained underperforming investment options in the plan’s menu to generate transaction fees, in violation of their duties of prudence and loyalty, and sought plan-wide monetary and equitable relief on behalf of the plan.Previously, the United States District Court for the Central District of California reviewed the case. The defendants moved to compel arbitration, relying on provisions in the plan requiring arbitration of disputes and waiving participants’ rights to bring claims on a “class, collective, or representative basis.” The plaintiff argued that this waiver impermissibly precluded her from enforcing statutory rights under ERISA, which allow participants to sue on behalf of the plan for plan-wide relief. The district court denied the motion to compel arbitration, finding the waiver unenforceable under the effective-vindication doctrine and holding that the waiver provision was expressly non-severable, thus requiring the claims to proceed in court.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration. The Ninth Circuit held that the plan’s waiver provision was unenforceable because it prevented the plaintiff from asserting her right under ERISA to bring representative claims for plan-wide relief—a right that ERISA expressly provides. The court further held that, under the plan’s own terms, once the waiver was found unenforceable, any representative claim must be adjudicated in court, not arbitration. Thus, the plaintiff’s breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims would proceed before the district court. View "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC." on Justia Law

Neils Point, LLC owns a farm property in Harpswell, Maine, which it leased to Joseph and Laura Grady for agricultural use. The Gradys resided on the property and operated the farm under successive lease agreements, culminating in a 2017 extension titled “Commercial Agricultural Lease Agreement.” This lease specified that it was not a residential rental, set rent as a percentage of the farm’s net proceeds, and required arbitration for disputes. Neils Point alleged that the Gradys breached the lease by miscalculating rent, failing to pay on time, and not using the land as productive cropland.After Neils Point initiated arbitration in 2024, the Gradys responded by admitting the dispute was subject to arbitration and made their own arbitration demand under the lease. The arbitration hearing was held in July 2025, with both parties participating fully and without objection to either the process or the arbitrability of the dispute. The arbitrator found in favor of Neils Point, concluding that the Gradys breached the lease by improperly deducting expenses, failing to pay rent, and not maintaining the farm’s productivity. Damages were awarded, and the Gradys were ordered to vacate the property.The Cumberland County Superior Court confirmed the arbitration award and denied the Gradys’ subsequent motion to vacate, in which they argued for the first time that the arbitration provision was void because the lease was residential and the arbitrator exceeded his authority. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the Gradys’ participation in arbitration without objection waived their right to challenge the validity of the arbitration clause or the arbitrator’s authority. The Court further held that the arbitrator’s construction of the lease was rational, and thus confirmation of the award was proper. View "Neils Point, LLC v. Grady" on Justia Law

Matthew Goforth, through MG Management Co., LLC, entered a dealer agreement with Sears Authorized Home Stores that included a broad non-compete provision, extending restrictions to his spouse, Malinda Goforth. After Matt decided not to renew the agreement, Sears suspected the Goforths would open a competing business and initiated arbitration, seeking to enforce the non-compete. The Goforths opposed enforcement, asserting the provision was unreasonable. The arbitrator initially denied emergency injunctive relief but later, upon learning that Matt and Malinda were opening Goforth Home & Lawn, granted interim relief enforcing the non-compete and added Malinda and her company as parties. A final arbitration award enforced the non-compete, but an appellate arbitrator later held the provision unenforceable while affirming attorneys’ fees to Sears. Subsequently, the Goforths initiated a second arbitration alleging antitrust violations, but the arbitrator determined their antitrust claims were compulsory counterclaims that should have been brought in the first arbitration.Following Sears’s bankruptcy, the Goforths brought an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri against Sears’s owners, Transform Holdco, LLC and affiliates, asserting the same antitrust claims. Transform moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were compulsory counterclaims barred by their failure to raise them in the initial arbitration. The district court agreed, holding the claims accrued upon Sears’s initiation of the first arbitration and were thus subject to compulsory counterclaim rules. The court granted summary judgment for Transform and did not address alternative grounds or the Goforths’ partial summary judgment motion.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Eighth Circuit held that the Goforths’ antitrust claims accrued when Sears initiated the first arbitration, making them compulsory counterclaims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13. The court also held that Malinda and her company were bound by the agreement’s arbitration provision. View "Goforth v. Transform Holdco, LLC" on Justia Law

Spanish investment companies alleged that Argentina unlawfully expropriated their airline investments, violating a bilateral treaty. After Argentina took over private airlines, the investors initiated arbitration at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). The ICSID tribunal awarded over $320 million to the investors, and an internal appellate committee later affirmed the award and added more than $1 million in costs. The investors then assigned their rights to Titan Consortium 1, LLC, which sought enforcement of the award in the United States four years after the initial award.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia reviewed Titan’s petition to enforce the arbitral award. Argentina moved to dismiss, arguing the petition was untimely under a three-year statute of limitations. The district court denied the motion, holding that the twelve-year statute of limitations for enforcement of money judgments under D.C. Code § 15-101 applied. It granted summary judgment for Titan, enforcing the award.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed Argentina’s appeal, which challenged only the timeliness ruling. The court considered which statute of limitations applies to enforcement actions under 22 U.S.C. § 1650a, the statute implementing the Washington Convention. The court held that D.C. Code § 15-101’s twelve-year limitations period for enforcement of money judgments is the closest analogue and applies to petitions enforcing ICSID awards under § 1650a. It rejected Argentina’s arguments for a three-year limitations period under federal or D.C. arbitration statutes, noting the differences in statutory text and enforcement procedures. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding Titan’s enforcement action was timely. View "Titan Consortium 1, LLC v. Argentine Republic" on Justia Law

Several related companies, along with an individual, operated the Inn of Chicago. After purchasing the property, they assumed an existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with a labor union. When the City of Chicago approached them to use the Inn to house displaced migrants, the operation resumed, but the employers did not use union members for typical hotel functions. Instead, these tasks were handled by an outside staffing agency and later by another company managed by the same people. The labor union learned of this arrangement, filed grievances alleging violations of the CBA, and submitted the dispute to arbitration. The union also filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board, which was consolidated with the arbitration.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, reviewed the arbitration award. The arbitrator had found that the Inn was operating as a “hotel” within the meaning of the CBA while housing migrants, that the related companies and individual were a “single employer” under the CBA, and that they violated both the CBA and the National Labor Relations Act by failing to use union employees and failing to provide notice or bargain with the union. The district court confirmed the arbitration award, rejecting the employers’ arguments regarding arbitrability, notice, and authority.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s confirmation of the arbitration award. The court held that the employers were bound by the arbitration because they participated without reserving objections, and the arbitrator’s findings drew from the CBA and issues submitted by the parties. The court found no due process or public policy violation and affirmed the district court’s confirmation of the award. View "Elmar Hotel Management, LLC v Unite Here Local 1" on Justia Law

A plaintiff was injured while riding in an autonomous vehicle operated by a ride-hailing company. At the time of the incident, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant company, but was using the service as a customer rather than in the scope of employment. The plaintiff sued the ride-hailing company and two related entities, including the vehicle manufacturer. The defendants sought to compel arbitration, arguing that the plaintiff had agreed to arbitration both through an employment agreement and through acceptance of the Terms of Service when signing up for the ride-hailing service as a user. The defendants relied on the sign-in process in the mobile app, which included conspicuous notice and hyperlinks to the Terms of Service containing an arbitration provision.The San Francisco City and County Superior Court denied the motion to compel arbitration. The trial court found the defendants failed to show that the plaintiff agreed to the arbitration provision in the Terms of Service, relying on a recent appellate case. The court also ruled that even if the Terms of Service were enforceable, they did not cover the related entities, and denied arbitration to prevent inconsistent rulings under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, subdivision (c).The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the sign-in wrap agreement used by the ride-hailing service provided sufficiently conspicuous notice of the Terms of Service, including the arbitration provision. It further held that the related entities were not “third parties” for purposes of section 1281.2, subdivision (c), due to the plaintiff’s own allegations of agency and joint venture among the defendants. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded with instructions to grant the motion to compel arbitration. View "Wilkins v. Cruise, LLC" on Justia Law

A Dutch life insurance company, through its trustees, sought to enforce an arbitral award against its former owners after they failed to maintain the company’s required solvency capital ratio, as agreed. When the capital ratio fell below the stipulated threshold, the company initiated urgent arbitration proceedings in the Netherlands, resulting in an award ordering the owners to restore the ratio and imposing a substantial penalty for noncompliance. Despite confirmations of the award by Dutch courts—including the Court of Rotterdam, the Court of Appeal of the Hague, and the Supreme Court of the Netherlands—the owners did not comply, leading to the company's liquidation.The trustees filed a petition in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, seeking to confirm the arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and the New York Convention, as well as to recognize the Dutch court’s judgment under the North Carolina Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act. The district court found the arbitration award enforceable, holding the FAA’s three-year statute of limitations was “permissive,” not “mandatory,” and also concluded the Dutch judgment was recognizable as a foreign-country judgment under North Carolina law. The court entered judgment, confirming the award under federal law and did not rule on the alternative state-law claim.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the three-year statute of limitations in 9 U.S.C. § 207 is mandatory, not permissive, and reversed the district court’s order confirming the foreign arbitral award under the FAA due to untimeliness. However, the appellate court agreed that the Dutch court judgment qualifies for recognition under the North Carolina Act and remanded the case for further proceedings on the petitioners’ motion to enforce that judgment under state law. View "van Faassen v. Lindberg" on Justia Law

A union representing over 100,000 current and former home healthcare workers in New York City entered into collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) with more than 40 employers. In 2015, the union and employers amended their CBAs with a Memorandum of Agreement (2015 MOA), mandating arbitration of statutory wage-and-hour claims, including those under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The union subsequently initiated a class arbitration in 2019 for wage claims dating back to 2008. The arbitrator found for the union, ordering employers to create a $30 million fund for affected workers and established a rapid payout process. The union sought, and the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York confirmed, the arbitration awards, making them binding on virtually all covered workers, except for nine individuals named in ongoing state litigation.Prior to the arbitration, several former employees who had left their jobs before the 2015 MOA was executed sued their employers in New York State courts, asserting similar wage claims. State courts uniformly held that these individuals, no longer union members or bargaining unit employees at the time of the 2015 MOA, could not be retroactively bound to arbitrate their claims. Despite this, the district court denied intervention by these former employees in the confirmation proceedings, concluding they lacked standing and were adequately represented by the union.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court, not the arbitrator, must decide whether the union and employers clearly agreed to arbitrate these statutory claims. The Circuit Court found that the union and employers did not agree to mandatory arbitration for former employees’ accrued statutory claims until the 2015 MOA, and the union could not lawfully waive the rights of individuals who had already left employment. The Court vacated the district court’s orders as to the appellants and remanded for further proceedings, ruling these individuals are not bound by the arbitration awards and may pursue their claims in state court. View "1199 SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS EAST v. CHINESE-AMERICAN PLANNING COUNCIL HOME ATTENDANT PROGRAM" on Justia Law

The underlying dispute arose from a business relationship between Standard Fiber, LLC and entities associated with Ridgeview, involving management fee arrangements over several years. In 2006, Standard Fiber and Ridgeview Capital, LLC entered a Management Services Agreement (2006 MSA) with a set fee structure. While payments continued after the 2006 MSA expired, the parties disagreed on what terms governed post-2008 payments. Standard Fiber asserted that subsequent agreements, including a 2014 agreement to pay $25,000 per month, controlled. Ridgeview denied the existence or effect of any later agreements, instead claiming entitlement to fees under the original MSA or an alleged oral 50/50 fee-splitting agreement.Ridgeview sued in the Third District Court, Salt Lake County, seeking unpaid management fees under the 50/50 oral agreement. The court compelled arbitration pursuant to the parties’ operating agreement, and the arbitration proceeded before a JAMS arbitrator. Ridgeview’s arbitration demand asserted claims for fees under the 2006 MSA and the 50/50 Agreement, but did not seek relief for breach of the 2014 fee agreement. During the arbitration, Standard Fiber referenced the 2014 Agreement as a defense, but Ridgeview did not advance it as a basis for affirmative recovery. The arbitrator ultimately found against Ridgeview on its submitted claims but awarded damages to Ridgeview based on breach of the 2014 Agreement.Standard Fiber moved the district court to modify or vacate the arbitration award, arguing the arbitrator exceeded her authority by granting relief on an unsubmitted claim. The district court confirmed the award, concluding it was rationally related to the parties’ submissions. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah held that an arbitrator may only award relief on claims actually submitted for decision. Because Ridgeview did not submit a claim for breach of the 2014 Agreement, the arbitrator exceeded her authority. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s confirmation of the award and remanded for modification to exclude any amount based on the 2014 Agreement. View "RV Holdings 4 v. Standard Fiber" on Justia Law

The plaintiff accepted a job at the defendant company in May 2017, signing an employment agreement that included an arbitration clause covering all employment-related disputes. Over several years, the plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to a sexually charged work environment and specific instances of sexual harassment. She repeatedly complained internally to supervisors and management from 2017 through 2021, but claims her concerns were ignored and that no corrective action was taken. The plaintiff further alleges she experienced retaliation, humiliation, and targeted harassment following her complaints, culminating in her termination by the defendant in December 2021, allegedly in retaliation for reporting the workplace environment.After her termination, the plaintiff filed an administrative complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing in August 2023 and received a right-to-sue letter. In July 2024, she initiated a lawsuit in California state court raising claims of discrimination, harassment, and hostile work environment. The defendant removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California based on diversity jurisdiction and moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the employment agreement. The district court granted the motion, finding that the dispute between the parties arose and the plaintiff’s claims accrued before the effective date of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA), which was March 3, 2022.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s order de novo. The court held that the EFAA applies only to disputes or claims that arise or accrue on or after March 3, 2022. Because the plaintiff’s dispute with the defendant arose and her claims accrued before that date, the statutory exception to arbitration in the EFAA did not apply. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order compelling arbitration. View "COMBS V. NETFLIX, INC." on Justia Law