Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

Although respondents' credit card agreement required their claims to be resolved by binding arbitration, they filed a lawsuit against petitioner and a division of petitioner bank, alleging, inter alia, violations of the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA), 15 U.S.C. 1679 et seq. At issue was whether the CROA precluded enforcement of an arbitration agreement in a lawsuit alleging violations of the Act. The Court held that because the CROA was silent on whether claims under the Act could proceed in an arbitrable forum, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq., required the arbitration agreement to be enforced according to its terms. View "CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood" on Justia Law

The Republic of Argentina appealed the denial of its motion to vacate an arbitral award on the principal ground that the arbitral panel exceeded its authority by ignoring the terms of the parties' agreement. The court held that where, as here, the result of the arbitral award was to ignore the terms of the Bilateral Investment Treaty - between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Argentina - and shifted the risk that the Argentine courts might not resolve BG Group's claim within eighteen months pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Treaty, the arbitral panel rendered a decision wholly based on outside legal sources and without regard to the contracting parties' agreement establishing a precondition to arbitration. Accordingly, the court reversed the orders denying the motion to vacate and granting the cross-motion to confirm, and vacated the Final Award. View "Republic of Argentina v. BG Group PLC" on Justia Law

This case involved a petition to confirm and enforce a foreign arbitration award against the Government of Belize pursuant to section 207 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 207. The facts underlying the issuance of the challenged stay order involved a telecommunication agreement with the government of Belize. Plaintiff appealed an order staying the proceeding pending the outcome of related litigation in Belize. The court concluded that the stay order as issued exceeded the proper exercise of authority of the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Belize Social Dev. Ltd. v. Government of Belize" on Justia Law

This case arose when Union entered into a limited job-preference agreement with Peabody Coal where the agreement included an arbitration clause. The district court subsequently entered judgment in favor of Union, ruling that the arbitrator properly determined the arbitrability of the dispute. In the alternative, the district court concluded that the dispute was arbitrable, even if the arbitrator lacked authority to decide the arbitrability question. Peabody Coal appealed. The court held, as an initial matter, that the court, not the arbitrator must decide whether the dispute was arbitrable. The parties' agreement lacked the requisite "clear and unmistakable" language evincing an intent to arbitrate arbitrability. Exercising the court's independent judgment on the arbitrability question, the court concluded that Peabody Coal had not rebutted the ordinary presumption in favor of arbitrability. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment and the parties must proceed to arbitration. View "Peabody Holding Co. v. United Mine Workers of America" on Justia Law

Crescent appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Volvo where the district court held that the contract between Crescent and Volvo compelled the parties to arbitrate their dispute. The court vacated and remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss where the district court erred in holding that Volvo's request for a declaratory judgment as to the applicability of 15 U.S.C. 1226 was properly before the court. Because the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Volvo's declaratory judgment action, the presence of this action in Volvo's complaint before the district court could not alter the court's holding that there was no subject matter jurisdiction to hear Volvo's petition to compel arbitration. View "Volvo Trucks North America v. Crescent Ford Truck Sales Inc." on Justia Law

SSW Holding filed a complaint against BDO Seidman and other defendants, asserting several causes of action and seeking damages arising from a tax-advantaged investment strategy involving investments in distressed debt that SSW entered into and utilized on its federal tax returns for the 2001-2005 tax years. BDO filed an amended motion to compel arbitration and stay the motion, asserting that it and SSW entered into two consulting agreements that provided for arbitration before the American Arbitration Association. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) SSW's claims fell within the scope of the arbitration provisions; and (2) the circuit court erred in finding that the arbitration provisions were unenforceable and invalid due to fraud and procedural and substantive unconscionability. Remanded. View "BDO Seidman, LLP v. SSW Holding Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Dennis Cornwell brought a wrongful death action on behalf of his wife who died at a railroad grade crossing when the vehicle she was driving hit a locomotive owned and operated by Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company. Union Pacific moved for summary judgment and also moved to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff's four experts based on "Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc." (509 U.S. 579 (1993)). The district court granted the summary judgment motion in part and ruled that the testimony of three experts should be excluded. The case proceeded to a jury trial. At its conclusion, the jury entered a verdict in favor of Union Pacific. Plaintiff appealed seeking to overturn the pre-trial rulings. Finding that the district court's ruling was supported by Tenth Circuit precedent and case law from other circuits, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision: "[t]he district court determined that [Plaintiff's experts'] proffered evidence was unreliable under "Daubert" standards: their evidence was speculative and conclusory." The Court therefore affirmed the exclusion of the experts' testimony and the grant of summary judgment in favor of the railroad. View "Cornwell v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law

The parties in this case signed an arbitration agreement providing that arbitration would occur in accordance with the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) Code of Procedure, but the NAF became unavailable to administer its Code and the arbitration. Defendants moved the circuit court to appoint a substitute arbitrator under Section 5 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The circuit court concluded that a substitute arbitrator could not be appointed under Section 5 because the NAF Code of Procedure was integral to the parties' agreement to arbitrate and the NAF was unavailable to administer its Code. The Supreme Court reversed after considering the language of the arbitration agreement, the language of the NAF Code, and the federal policy expressed in the FAA, holding that Section 5 applied, and that absent some other defense, Section 5 required the appointment of a substitute arbitrator. View "Wright v. GGNSC Holdings LLC " on Justia Law

Defendant is a captive insurer owned by plaintiff plans across the nation. In 2003 healthcare providers filed class action suits in Florida against all of those plans. Twelve plans, which had errors-and-omissions insurance from defendant, asked it to assume the defense and indemnify. Defendant declined, and the plans demanded arbitration. Acting under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 5, the district court held that the arbitrators could determine whether arbitration of a class action or consolidated arbitration were authorized by contract and appointed a third arbitrator. The court dismissed the appeal of the court's first ruling for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the appointment. If defendant wanted a judge to decide whether the plans' demands should be arbitrated jointly or separately, it should have refused to appoint an arbitrator. Both sides appointed arbitrators, however, and the proceeding got under way. Nothing in the Federal Arbitration Act authorizes anticipatory review of the arbitrators' anticipated decisions on procedural questions. View "Blue Cross Blue Shield of MA, Inc. v. BCS Ins. Co." on Justia Law

This case arose when plaintiffs and defendants entered into an agreement to co-underwrite a municipal bond offering that was to be issued by Dade County, FL. The dispute underlying the case arose when a third party involved in that bond offering failed to pay plaintiffs and plaintiffs in turn failed to pay defendants. At issue was whether the district court should have permitted the dispute to be arbitrated. Plaintiffs argued that the district court should have enjoined the arbitration proceedings, in part because plaintiffs waived the right to arbitrate by engaging in litigation conduct inconsistent of that right. Plaintiffs also argued that, even if arbitration was permissible, the district court should have vacated the award the arbitration panel entered in defendants' favor. Because the court concluded that the district court abused its discretion by failing to decide itself whether defendants had waived the right to arbitration, the court vacated the district court's order and remanded for that court to decide the waiver issue. View "Grigsby & Assoc. v. M Securities Investment, et al." on Justia Law