Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

Thomas Vo signed an employment arbitration agreement with Technology Credit Union (TCU) before starting his job in 2020. The agreement required both parties to submit any employment-related disputes to binding arbitration. Vo was later terminated and sued TCU for violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), including harassment, discrimination, and wrongful termination. TCU moved to compel arbitration, but Vo opposed, arguing the agreement was unconscionable because it did not allow for prehearing third-party discovery.The Santa Clara County Superior Court found the arbitration agreement procedurally unconscionable as a contract of adhesion and substantively unconscionable because it did not permit third-party discovery, relying on Aixtron, Inc. v. Veeco Instruments Inc. The court denied TCU's motion to compel arbitration, leading TCU to appeal the decision.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case de novo. The court found that while the agreement was procedurally unconscionable, it was not substantively unconscionable. The court noted that the JAMS Rules incorporated into the agreement allowed the arbitrator to order additional discovery, including third-party discovery, if necessary. The court emphasized that the agreement should be interpreted to allow adequate discovery to vindicate statutory claims, as clarified in Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc.The appellate court reversed the trial court's order and remanded with instructions to grant TCU's motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings pending arbitration. The court concluded that the arbitration agreement was enforceable and not unconscionable. View "Vo v. Technology Credit Union" on Justia Law

Kristin Casey, a former employee of D.R. Horton, Inc., filed a lawsuit against the company and one of its employees, Kris Hansen, alleging sexual harassment and other claims. D.R. Horton moved to compel arbitration based on an employment agreement that included an arbitration clause governed by California law. Casey opposed the motion, citing the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA), which allows plaintiffs to invalidate arbitration agreements in cases involving sexual harassment. The trial court granted the motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that the EFAA was inapplicable due to the choice-of-law provision in the employment agreement.The Contra Costa County Superior Court initially reviewed the case and granted the motion to compel arbitration, accepting Hansen's joinder. The court concluded that the choice-of-law provision in the employment agreement meant that California law, not the EFAA, applied. Casey then filed a petition for a writ of mandate to challenge this decision.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that the EFAA preempts state law attempts to compel arbitration in cases related to sexual harassment disputes. The court determined that the EFAA applies to the parties' transaction because it sufficiently involved interstate commerce. The court also concluded that the EFAA's rule of unenforceability of arbitration agreements in sexual harassment cases preempts the state law and that parties cannot contract around the EFAA through a choice-of-law provision. Consequently, the court granted Casey's petition and directed the trial court to vacate its order compelling arbitration and to enter a new order denying the motion. View "Casey v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Justo Malo Sanchez filed a legal malpractice complaint against Consumer Defense Law Group (CDLG), Tony Cara, Peter Nisson, and Nonprofit Alliance of Consumer Advocates (collectively Defendants). Sanchez alleged that the Defendants committed legal malpractice, resulting in the loss of his house. The retainer agreement he signed included an arbitration clause, which he argued was procedurally and substantively unconscionable due to his inability to understand English and his financial inability to afford arbitration fees.The Superior Court of Orange County initially tentatively denied the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration but later granted it. Sanchez then filed a petition for extraordinary relief, arguing that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and that he could not afford the arbitration fees.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court found substantial procedural unconscionability due to the adhesive nature of the contract, Sanchez's limited English proficiency, and the lack of a Spanish translation or explanation of the arbitration clause. The court also found substantive unconscionability because Sanchez, who was indigent and had been granted a court fee waiver, could not afford the $2,000 arbitration filing fee and additional costs estimated between $25,000 and $30,000.The court concluded that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable due to unconscionability. Additionally, under the precedent set by Roldan v. Callahan & Blaine, the court held that Sanchez could be excused from paying the arbitration fees due to his inability to afford them. The court granted Sanchez's petition, directing the superior court to vacate its order compelling arbitration and to enter an order denying the motion to compel arbitration. View "Sanchez v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Republic Airways Inc. and Hyannis Air Service, Inc. entered into individual employment agreements with pilot candidates, offering incentives in exchange for employment commitments. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters and its local unions argued that these agreements violated the Railway Labor Act (RLA) because they were not bargained for and fell outside the scope of the collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) between the parties.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana dismissed the unions' complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, determining that the dispute was "minor" under the RLA and thus subject to arbitration. The court found that the resolution of the dispute required interpretation of the CBAs, which mandated arbitration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the employment agreements were arguably justified by the broad discretionary language in the CBAs, which allowed the carriers to offer incentives and determine their terms. The court emphasized the RLA's strong preference for arbitration and concluded that the carriers' arguments were not frivolous or insubstantial. Therefore, the dispute was classified as minor and subject to arbitration, not federal court jurisdiction. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the unions' state law claim. View "International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Republic Airways Inc." on Justia Law

Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. (Nabors) performed oil well plug and abandonment work for the City of Long Beach (the City) between 2012 and 2014. The City had contracted with Tidelands Oil Production Company (Tidelands) for services on the Gerald Desmond Bridge Replacement Project, and Tidelands subcontracted the work to Nabors. The City and Tidelands had concluded that the work was not subject to prevailing wage laws, and Nabors was not informed otherwise during the bid process. After completing the work, Nabors faced a class action from its employees for unpaid prevailing wages, which led to arbitration awards and federal court judgments against Nabors.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County sustained demurrers by the City and Tidelands, dismissing Nabors’s claims for indemnity under Labor Code sections 1781 and 1784. The court ruled that section 1784 could not be applied retroactively to Tidelands and that the arbitration awards confirmed by the federal court did not qualify as court decisions under section 1781.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the dismissal of the section 1784 claim against Tidelands, agreeing that the statute could not be applied retroactively. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the section 1781 claim against the City, holding that the federal court’s confirmation of arbitration awards did qualify as court decisions classifying the work as public work. The case was remanded with instructions to enter a new order overruling the City’s demurrer to the section 1781 cause of action. Nabors was awarded costs on appeal against the City, while Tidelands was awarded costs on appeal against Nabors. View "Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. v. City of Long Beach" on Justia Law

A financial advisor, employed by Principal Securities, Inc., was terminated for failing to obtain a second client consent when rebalancing accounts using a new trading system. The advisor argued that the termination report filed by Principal with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) was misleading and initiated arbitration to seek changes to the report. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the advisor, recommending changes to the termination report to reflect that the advisor's failure was due to a lack of training and that the advisor was encouraged not to resign during the investigation.The Iowa District Court for Polk County vacated the arbitration award, finding it unsupported by substantial evidence. The advisor appealed, and the case was transferred to the Iowa Court of Appeals. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, with the majority agreeing that the information provided by Principal was not defamatory or misleading. The dissenting judge believed that substantial evidence supported the arbitration award.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and applied a highly deferential standard of review. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the arbitrator's determination that the termination report was misleading and that the recommended changes were justified. The court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals, reversed the district court's judgment, and remanded the case with instructions to confirm the arbitration award. View "Principal Securities, Inc. v. Gelbman" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Jenny-Ashley Colon-Perez sued her former employer, Security Industry Specialists, Inc. (SIS), alleging multiple causes of action related to her employment. After SIS moved to compel arbitration, the parties agreed to arbitrate, and the trial court ordered the claims to arbitration and stayed the court action. SIS paid two arbitration fee invoices but failed to pay the third invoice within the 30-day period required by California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98. Colon-Perez elected to withdraw from arbitration and moved to vacate the arbitration and stay order. The trial court granted the motion, ruling that SIS had materially breached the arbitration agreement and Colon-Perez was entitled to proceed with her claims in court. SIS then moved to vacate the order under section 473(b), which the trial court denied.The trial court ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) did not preempt section 1281.98 and that SIS had materially breached the arbitration agreement by failing to pay the fees on time. The court also found that section 1281.98 did not violate the contracts clause of the United States and California Constitutions. SIS appealed, arguing that the FAA preempted section 1281.98, that section 1281.98 violated the contracts clause, and that it was entitled to relief under section 473(b).The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the trial court's orders. The court held that the FAA did not preempt section 1281.98, as the state law could be applied concurrently with federal law. The court also found that section 1281.98 did not violate the contracts clause because it served a significant and legitimate public purpose and was appropriately tailored to achieve that purpose. Additionally, the court ruled that section 473(b) relief was not available for SIS's failure to timely pay arbitration fees, as the statute's strict 30-day deadline was intended to be inflexible. View "Colon-Perez v. Security Industry Specialists" on Justia Law

In 2017, Baker Hughes Saudi Arabia Co., Ltd. (Baker Hughes) and Dynamic Industries Saudi Arabia, Ltd. (Dynamic) entered into a subcontract for an oil-and-gas project in Saudi Arabia. The subcontract included provisions for resolving disputes through arbitration, with Dynamic having the option to demand arbitration in Saudi Arabia. If Dynamic did not demand arbitration in Saudi Arabia, either party could initiate arbitration under the rules of the Dubai International Financial Centre’s joint partnership with the London Court of International Arbitration (DIFC-LCIA). In 2021, the United Arab Emirates abolished the DIFC-LCIA and created a new arbitral institution. A contract dispute arose, and Baker Hughes sued in state court, which was then removed to federal court. Dynamic moved to dismiss for forum non conveniens or to compel arbitration under Schedule E of the subcontract. The district court denied Dynamic’s motion, stating that the designated forum no longer existed, making the forum-selection clause unenforceable.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana reviewed the case and denied Dynamic’s motion to dismiss or compel arbitration, reasoning that the DIFC-LCIA no longer existed, thus invalidating the forum-selection clause.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the district court erred in refusing to compel arbitration. The appellate court found that the subcontract’s Schedule E designated only the rules of arbitration, not a specific forum. Even if the DIFC-LCIA was considered the designated forum, the court concluded that the forum-selection clause was not integral to the subcontract. The court reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to consider whether the DIFC-LCIA rules could be applied by another available forum, such as the LCIA, DIAC, or a forum in Saudi Arabia, and to compel arbitration accordingly. The court also partially granted and denied Baker Hughes’s motion to strike portions of Dynamic’s reply brief. View "Baker Hughes v. Dynamic Industries" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, who are military members, filed a class action against Citibank, alleging violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) and other statutes. They claimed Citibank improperly charged them higher interest rates and fees on their credit card balances after they left active duty, contrary to the SCRA's protections. The credit card agreements included arbitration clauses that required disputes to be resolved individually, not as class actions.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina denied Citibank's motion to compel arbitration, holding that the SCRA allowed servicemembers to bring class actions in federal court despite any prior agreement to arbitrate. The court interpreted the SCRA's provision allowing class actions "notwithstanding any previous agreement to the contrary" as overriding the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit held that the SCRA does not explicitly prohibit arbitration agreements and that the FAA requires enforcement of such agreements unless there is a clear congressional command to the contrary. The court found that the SCRA's language did not provide such a command and that the arbitration agreements should be enforced according to their terms, which included individual arbitration.The Fourth Circuit remanded the case with instructions to compel arbitration for all claims except those under the Military Lending Act (MLA). The court noted that the MLA explicitly prohibits arbitration agreements for disputes involving the extension of consumer credit to servicemembers. The district court was instructed to determine whether the MLA applied to the plaintiffs' credit card accounts and to address any related issues. View "Espin v. Citibank, N.A." on Justia Law

Caroline Retzios was terminated by Epic Systems Corporation after she refused to be vaccinated against COVID-19, citing religious objections. She filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming that Epic was required to accommodate her religious beliefs. Epic requested the district court to compel arbitration based on an agreement Retzios had signed, which the court granted, subsequently dismissing the suit.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the case after referring it to arbitration, despite Epic's request for a stay. According to the Federal Arbitration Act, a stay should have been issued instead of a dismissal when arbitration is requested. This dismissal allowed Retzios to appeal the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the district court erred in dismissing the suit instead of staying it. However, the appellate court proceeded with the case due to the district court's actions. The appellate court found that Retzios's claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement she had signed with Epic. The court rejected Retzios's arguments against the enforceability of the arbitration agreement, including her claims of promissory estoppel and waiver. The court also found her objections to arbitration to be frivolous and granted Epic's motion for sanctions, directing Retzios to reimburse Epic for its legal expenses incurred on appeal. The decision of the district court was affirmed, with sanctions imposed on Retzios. View "Retzios v Epic Systems Corp." on Justia Law