Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

This case stemmed from an asset purchase transaction where defendants and plaintiff entered into an allocation agreement that included an arbitration clause. Defendants appealed from the district court's order enjoining arbitration and denying their motion to stay judicial proceedings under section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. 3. Defendants contended that the arbitration clause reserved the question of arbitrability for the arbitrators, and that the district court erred in determining that the dispute was not subject to arbitration. The court held that the arbitration clause in the agreement clearly and unmistakably expressed the parties' intent that the arbitrators determine questions of arbitrability, and that the district court therefore erred in permanently enjoining the arbitration and failing to stay judicial proceedings under section 3 of the FAA. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to grant the motion to stay proceedings under section 3 and dissolve the permanent injunction.

This lawsuit arose from the dispute between the parties about how much appellant was obligated to pay appellee for auto-glass goods and services rendered on behalf of appellant's insureds. Appellants appealed from the district court's orders dismissing its counterclaim that appellee violated Minnesota's anti-incentive statute, Minn. Stat. 325F.783, granting summary judgment in favor of appellee on appellant's counterclaim for breach of contract, and denying appellant's motion to vacate the arbitration award. The court held that, given the plain language of the statute and the ordinary meaning of the terms of rebate and credit, appellee's practice did not violate the anti-incentive statute. The court also held that even if the blast faxes at issue constituted offers to enter into unilateral contracts, appellee rejected the offers when its actions failed to conform to the terms of the offer. The court further held that the arbitration award did not require reversal or new proceedings because the award was based on the finding that appellant failed to pay the competitive price standard set forth in the applicable endorsement and Minnesota law.

This case arose from the parties' insurance agreement where appellant insured appellees against borrower defaults on appellees' loans. Appellant appealed the district court's decision to remand the case back to state court pursuant to its discretion under the Declaratory Judgment Act ("DJA"), 28 U.S.C. 2201-2202. At issue was whether the district court was required to consider appellant's motion under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. 3, before exercising its discretion under the DJA. The court held that, because the federal court's jurisdiction was proper, it was required under the mandatory terms of the FAA to consider appellant's motion before it remanded the case pursuant to its discretion under the DJA. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's order of remand and remanded for its consideration of appellant's FAA motion.

The union contracts state that a cost-of-living allowance will be applied to offset health insurance costs for hourly-rated employees and not be applied to hourly wage rates. The contracts state that the COLA will be equal to 1¢ per hour for each full 0.3 of a point change in the Consumer Price Index calculation. An employer was calculating the COLA on a weekly basis and maintained that the adjustment was only $0.08 per week; the union argued that the adjustment should be calculated at $3.20 per week ($0.08 x 40 hours per week). In November 2008, an arbitrator rejected management's argument that the contracts included a scrivener's error and that the COLA should be calculated on a weekly, rather than hourly basis.The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the unions. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185, preempts employers' state law fraud counterclaims. An attempt to assert a federal common law "fraudulent procurement" defense was barred by the three-month limitations period for challenging the arbitrator's award.

Defendant appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff, compelling arbitration of a dispute related to healthcare benefits under an expired collective bargaining agreement. At issue was whether the district court erred in granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and issuing an order compelling the arbitration. The court reversed and held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment and compelling arbitration where both parties vigorously disputed issues of both law and fact, including whether the 1994 agreement was ambiguous and whether the summary plan descriptions constituted an intrinsic or extrinsic evidence of the parties' intent. The parties also point to various other extrinsic evidence and vehemently disagree as to whether the bargained for fully-paid health insurance premiums for life or just for the term of the agreement. Under these circumstances, the court held that the question of whether the right to fully-paid premiums vested under the 1994 agreement was best decided in the first instance by the district court and therefore, remanded for further proceedings.

Appellant brought an interlocutory appeal from the circuit court’s denial of its motion to compel arbitration. The appellee argued that appellant’s appeal was untimely filed. To be timely, appellant was required to file its notice of appeal within thirty days of the order denying the motion to compel arbitration, which was entered on December 28, 2009. At issue was whether appellant’s January 4, 2010 motion to dismiss constituted a post-order motion that would have extended the time for filing the notice of the appeal under Ark. R. of App. P. Civ. 4(b). The Court concluded that because the motion substantively sought to correct procedural defects in a December 21, 2009 motion, the January 4 motion was not a new motion and was treated by the circuit court as one for reconsideration. Because it was a collateral motion, it did not extend the time for filing the notice of appeal. The Court held the appellant’s notice of appeal filed on March 19, 2010 was untimely and dismissed the appeal.

Petitioner filed an arbitration claim against respondent with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") raising federal claims of securities fraud under section 10(b)(5) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 ("SEC"), 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq., and SEC Rule 10b-5, as well as state-law claims. When respondent lost the FINRA arbitration, respondent appealed the arbitration order asserting various improprieties and asked the district court, and now this court, to undo the award. The court upheld confirmation of the award in full after giving careful attention to respondent's arguments and found them to be without merit. The court did hold, however, that the district court's judgment should credit respondent for approximately $75 million that petitioner received in exchange for selling some of the failed auction rate securities at issue and should have reduced respondent's liability for interest accordingly. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's judgment on that point and remanded for modification in light of the partial satisfaction of the award. The court rejected, however, respondent's attempt to alter the award's scheme for distributing interest earned on the securities portfolio.

Debtor appealed the bankruptcy court's order granting creditor relief from the automatic stay to proceed with arbitration of its claim against debtor's bankruptcy estate. At issue was whether the bankruptcy court erred by not ruling on the issue of whether the agreement to arbitrate between the parties was obtained by fraud and whether the bankruptcy court should have tailored its order to require creditor's claim to be arbitrated by allegedly, then-pending class action arbitration. The court held that the bankruptcy court correctly determined that debtor's challenge to the contract between the parties was subject to arbitration where debtor's failure to raise an independent challenge before the bankruptcy court to the agreement to arbitrate was basis alone to affirm the bankruptcy court's order. The court also held that debtor failed to appreciate that separately alleging that an agreement to arbitrate was obtained through fraud was different from offering a separate basis for the fraud and the only fraud debtor alleged was that creditor misrepresented that it was affiliated with Ford Motor, Co., that this fraud induced the arbitration, and that this fraud induced the contract as a whole. Consequently, there was no need for the bankruptcy court to intervene or, in this case, deny creditor's motion for relief from the stay. The court further held that the bankruptcy court was not required to tailor its order to require arbitration in the class action arbitration in Texas where the arbitration panel in Texas declined to certify the class and the issue was therefore, moot. Accordingly, the court affirmed the bankruptcy court's order granting creditor relief from the automatic stay to proceed with the arbitration of its claim against debtor's bankruptcy estate.

Appellant, a Montana limited partnership which owned an electrical generating plant in Rosebud County, appealed the district court's order denying its motion to vacate the arbitration award ("Final Award") in its dispute with appellee, a Delaware corporation and a regulated public utility conducting business in Montana. At issue was whether the district court abused its discretion when if failed to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitration award. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion where Montana's Uniform Arbitration Act, 27-5-311 MCA, did not permit a court to vacate an arbitration award in part; where Montana law was clear that a non-breaching party was still required to prove its damages; where the district court correctly noted in its order confirming the Final Award that the legal precedent on which appellant relied for its request to modify or correct the Final Award applied only to motions to vacate an award; and where the district court correctly determined that it lacked the authority to vacate the Final Award.

Petitioners and respondent agreed to submit their claims to arbitration but could not agree on an arbitrator. Because of this disagreement, the trial judge intervened and appointed an arbitrator to preside over their dispute. At issue was whether the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.016 of an interlocutory appeal of an order appointing an arbitrator. Also at issue was whether, in the alternative, petitioners should be granted mandamus relief to prevent form from overriding substance. The court held that the court of appeals correctly determined that it was without jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal pursuant to section 51.016. The court also instructed the court of appeals to consider this appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus because petitioners specifically requested mandamus relief in the court of appeals and preserved that issue in this court and because judicial efficiency militated against requesting petitioners to file a separate original proceeding.