main image

Archive for the ‘United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’ Category

Professor Aaron Bruhl’s Analysis of Rent-a-Center, West v. Jackson (No. 09-497)

February 24th, 2010 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States Supreme Court No Comments »

Professor Aaron Bruhl, an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Houston Law Center, recently published in PrawfsBlawg a thought-provoking and insightful article on Rent-a-Center, West v. Jackson (No. 09-497).  (Post here)  Regular readers no doubt remember that the United States Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Rent-a-Center, and will be hearing argument on April 26, 2010.  (See our prior posts here and here).

Professor Bruhl points out that, in addition to being of interest to those practicing employment, consumer or plain old arbitration law, Rent-a-Center “is just as interesting for those who study federal courts and judicial politics.”   He reminds us that one of the few remaining “safety valves” for challenging arbitration agreements is unconscionability:     

In the last few years, as other routes for challenging arbitration have been closed off, unconscionability has become a surprisingly common and surprisingly effective way of attacking arbitration agreements.  The challenges do not attack arbitration per se – federal law favors arbitration – but instead target various aspects of a particular arbitration process:  a given clause might forbid class arbitrations, bar punitive damages or otherwise restrict remedies, sharply curtail discovery, require a consumer to pay hefty arbitrator’s fees, etc.  There have been many cases on these topics in recent years, and a good number of them sustain the challenge to the arbitration clause.

He notes that the United States Supreme Court has consistently denied certiorari in cases where lower courts have invalidated arbitration agreements on state-law unconscionability grounds and the question is whether the invalidation offended the Federal Arbitration Act.  He suspects “the Court has avoided these cases because it feels ill-equipped to resolve whether a lower court is discriminating against arbitration:” 

First, unconscionability analysis often requires a fact-intensive inquiry.  Second, and more important, determining whether a lower court is using unconscionability differently when it comes to arbitration requires an engagement with the details of state law and a comparison of lots of prior unconscionability cases.  Third, and maybe most important of all, a holding that the lower court is applying unconscionability unfairly, especially when the lower court says it is applying the same analysis it applies elsewhere, carries with it some serious expressive baggage.  Essentially, it requires the Supreme Court to say that the lower court is being dishonest.  That happens, but when it does so, it is a big deal (think cases like Bush v. Gore or the cases from the 50s/60s rejecting supposed procedural defaults in the state courts).

 But the Court granted certiorari in Rent-a-Center, a case involving not the merits of a state law unconscionability challenge, but the question who gets to decide unconscionability when the parties clearly and unmistakably submit it to the arbitrators.  Professor Bruhl believes certiorari was granted because addressing the “who” question, and resolving it in favor of arbitration, will cleanly dispose of the unconscionability problem from the standpoint of the federal courts, at least in cases where the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitrate arbitrability: 

That doesn’t require diving into the weeds of state law and the record. If the Court assigns the issue to the arbitrator, that will be a very easy rule to monitor for compliance (unlike deciding whether the lower court applied unconscionability correctly).  All of those unconscionability cases out there will instantly become not wrong but irrelevant – because courts won’t be deciding the issue anymore.  And it won’t matter whether some lower courts can be trusted to apply unconscionability correctly, because they will be cut out of the picture. Continue Reading »

SCOTUS Oral Argument in Jackson v. Rent-a-Center West, Inc. Set for April 26, 2010

February 17th, 2010 Arbitrability, Authority of Arbitrators, Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States Supreme Court No Comments »

The United States Supreme Court has set for April 26, 2010 oral argument in Jackson v. Rent-a-Center West, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, slip op. (9th Cir. Sept. 9, 2009), petition for cert. granted  Jan. 15, 2010 (No. 09-497) (oral argument calendar here).  Jackson addresses the question who decides unconscionability of an arbitration agreement when the agreement clearly and unmistakably says arbitrators decide arbitrability.  The Ninth Circuit said the court decides the question, but we think there is a reasonable chance the United States Supreme Court will reverse.   We touched on some of the reasons why in prior posts, here and here. 

We shall keep readers apprised of further developments as and when they occur.  .  .  .

Ninth Circuit Approves Ex Parte Hearing Procedures in Reinsurance Case: United States Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Nat’l Ins. Co.

February 7th, 2010 Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Grounds for Vacatur, Practice and Procedure, Procedural Misconduct, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit No Comments »

I.          Introduction

Back in January the Ninth Circuit decided United States Life Ins. Co. v. Superior National Ins. Co., ___ F.3d ___, slip op. (9th Cir. Jan. 4, 2010), a Federal Arbitration Act Section 10(a)(3) procedural misconduct decision that affords reinsurance and other arbitrators a good deal of leeway to devise and implement nontraditional procedures for resolving complex problems.   The case centered around a rather unusual procedure the arbitrators ordered and implemented to determine whether the cedents improperly handled some 12,604 contested workers compensation claims.  It also concerned the authority of arbitrators to interpret the scope of the submission and to award a disgorgement of investment income remedy in addition to pre-award interest.  Continue Reading »

SCOTUS Update: United States Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Jackson v. Rent-a-Center West, Inc. Arbitration Unconscionability Case

January 18th, 2010 Unconscionability, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States Supreme Court 5 Comments »

On September 23, 2009 we reported on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Jackson v. Rent-a-Center West, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, slip op. (9th Cir. Sept. 9, 2009), petition for cert. granted  Jan. 15, 2010 (No. 09-497).  (Prior post here)  As reported in Disputing, on January 15, 2010, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear Rent-a-Center West’s appeal.  (Disputing post here) 

As we discussed nearly four months ago Rent-a-Center concerns an important “who” question that arises in unconscionability cases:  When the parties clearly and unmistakably agree that the arbitrators will decide arbitrability questions, who gets to decide whether the arbitration clause is unenforceable on unconscionability grounds? 

We think the question answers itself.  But the Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, held that the court decides the unconscionability question irrespective of the parties clearly expressed intent to the contrary.  We argued that the Ninth Circuit should have applied a severability analysis of sorts, and referred the unconscionability question to the arbitrators.  The ”Analysis” section of our prior post is reprinted in pertinent part below:  

There is logic to the rule adopted by the majority in that unconscionability is a state law defense that goes to the enforceability of an agreement.  When a party challenges the enforceability of an arbitration agreement, the court ordinarily decides it – unless the parties clearly and unmistakably agree otherwise.  And while the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitrate arbitrability,  that agreement was – as is often the case – simply a component of the rest of the arbitration agreement.  If the entire arbitration agreement is unenforceable because of unconscionability, then so too must be the agreement to arbitrate arbitrability. 

The problem with the majority’s logic is that it does not distinguish between the enforceability of the clear and unmistakable agreement to arbitrate arbitrability and the enforceability of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate all other disputes.  The Rent-a-Center parties envisioned that a dispute concerning the enforceability of their agreement to arbitrate all other disputes would be decided by the arbitrators.  That is what the parties’ agreement said, and the United States Supreme Court has said that parties can enter into such agreements, provided they are clear and unmistakable. 

We think courts would better advance the purposes of the Federal Arbitration Act by engaging in a severability analysis of sorts when confronting questions like the one in Rent-a-Center.   When parties agree not only to arbitrate the merits of controversies unrelated to the arbitration clause, but also clearly and unmistakably agree to arbitrate arbitrability, the latter agreement is tantamount to an arbitration agreement within an arbitration agreement.  One agreement concerns who decides disputes concerning the existence, formation or enforceability of the other agreement.  And the other agreement concerns the parties’ obligation to arbitrate all other disputes.  Each should be analyzed separately under Federal Arbitration Act Section 2. 

What the court did in Rent-a-Center was assume that, if any part of the arbitration agreement were unenforceable for any reason, then the entire arbitration agreement – including the clear and unmistakable agreement to arbitrate arbitrability – must fail.  Perhaps ironically, the Court found support for this analysis in the Prima Paint/Buckeye Check Cashing line of cases that hold that an enforceability challenge directed at the contract as a whole – as opposed to the arbitration agreement specifically – must be decided by the arbitrators rather than the court.  Because the challenge here was to a stand-alone arbitration agreement that included a clear and unmistakable agreement to arbitrate arbitrability, the Court simply assumed that Federal Arbitration Act Section 2 required the Court to decide it.  But doing so was inconsistent with the parties’ clearly expressed intent that the arbitrators would decide arbitrability questions, at least arbitrability questions that did not concern the enforceability of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate arbitrability. 

The Court should have limited its inquiry to whether the parties’ agreement to arbitrate arbitrability was substantively unconscionable.  If not, then the Court should have directed that the arbitrators decide the question whether the remainder of the arbitration clause was substantively unconscionable.  Had the Court looked at the problem from that perspective, we believe it would have concluded that the unconscionability defense did not apply to the parties’ clear and unmistakable agreement to arbitrate, and that, accordingly, the arbitrators had to decide whether the challenge to the remainder of the arbitration clause had merit.  

.  .  .  . 

So we think the Court should have enforced the agreement to arbitrate arbitrability by committing to the arbitrators the question whether the parties’ agreement to arbitrate all other claims was unconscionable because it was allegedly one-sided.  Had it done so, it would have given full force and effect to the parties’ clearly expressed intentions, the pro-enforcement policies of Federal Arbitration Act Section 2, and the letter and spirit of First Options.

 We shall keep readers apprised of developments as and when they occur.  It will be interesting to see how the United States Supreme Court decides this case.

United States Supreme Court Update: Union Pacific and Granite Rock Labor Arbitration Cases

October 11th, 2009 Authority of Arbitrators, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, United States Supreme Court, labor arbitration 1 Comment »

Introduction

So far the United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear only one arbitration case governed by the Federal Arbitration Act:  Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 548 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2009), petition for cert. granted June 15, 2009 (No. 08-1198), which has been set for oral argument at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time, December 9, 2009.   (See Russ Kunkel’s LawMemo Arbitration Blog  here.)  We have written extensively on Stolt-Nielsen, which concerns whether class arbitration may be imposed on parties whose contracts are silent on that point.  (Posts available here,  here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.)

The Supreme Court has also agreed to hear two labor arbitration cases.  The first is Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen (08-604), which is governed by the the Railway Labor Act (“RLA”), 45 U.S.C. §§151 et seq.  The RLA, among other things, requires arbitration before the National Railroad Adjustment Board (“the Board”) of labor disputes involving railway workers.  Union Pacific, for all practical purposes, is therefore not a contractual arbitration case, but an administrative law one, and the outcome will likely have  little or no effect on Federal Arbitration Act jurisprudence.  The Court held oral argument on October 7, 2009.  (Oral argument Tr. here) 

The second is Granite Rock Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters (08-1214), which arises under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act.  The Court is expected to set argument for later this Fall.  (See Russ Kunkel’s LawMemo Employment Law Blog here.)   Though not governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, Granite Rock, unlike Union Pacific, is a contractual arbitration case.  And the outcome may be relevant to cases falling under the Federal Arbitration Act. 

We briefly summarize below the issues the Court will presumably address in these labor arbitration cases and discuss why Granite Rock may be more controversial than it appears at first blush.    Continue Reading »

SCOTUS Denies Certiorari in All Three Federal Arbitration Act Manifest Disregard Cases Considered at Last Week’s Conference

October 5th, 2009 Awards, Grounds for Vacatur, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, United States Supreme Court No Comments »

Last week we reported that the United States Supreme Court was considering three petitions for certiorari concerning whether manifest disregard of the law remains a viable ground for vacating or modifying an arbitration award after Hall Street Assoc., L.L.C. v. Mattel , Inc, 552 U.S. ___, slip op. (March 25, 2008) (post here).  Today the Court denied certiorari in all three cases:  The Coffee Beanery, Ltd. v. WW, LLC, 300 Fed. Appx. 415 (6th Cir. 2008) (08-1396);  Grain v. Trinity Health, 551 F.3d 374 (6th Cir. 2008) (08-1446); and Improv West Associates v. Comedy Club, Inc.,  553 F.3d 1277 (9th Cir. ) (08-1529).

Update on Federal Arbitration Act Cases Pending in the United States Supreme Court

September 29th, 2009 Awards, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 1 Comment »

Today the United States Supreme Court is considering whether to grant certiorari in three cases that concern whether manifest disregard of the law remains a viable ground for vacating or modifying an arbitration award after Hall Street Assoc., L.L.C. v. Mattel , Inc, 552 U.S. ___, slip op. (March 25, 2008).  The first is The Coffee Beanery, Ltd. v. WW, LLC, 300 Fed. Appx. 415 (6th Cir. 2008), petition for cert. filed May 11, 2009 (08-1396), in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that manifest disregard survived Hall Street as an independent ground for vacatur, and that an award in favor of a franchisor must be vacated because the arbitrator manifestly disregarded Maryland franchise law requiring franchisors to disclose certain types of prior criminal convictions.  The Sixth Circuit also found that the franchisor’s failure to disclose the conviction vitiated the arbitration clause contained in the franchise contract, a holding that seems questionable in light of Buckeye Check Cashing v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 449 (2006). 

The second case is Grain v. Trinity Health, 551 F.3d 374 (6th Cir. 2008), petition for cert. filed May 19, 2009 (08-1446), in which the Sixth Circuit held that the arbitrators’ failure to enforce the parties’ choice of Michigan law as respects the issue of costs and attorney fees — characterized as manifest disregard of the law — was not a valid ground for modifying an arbitration award under Federal Arbitration Act Section 11.  

The third is Improv West Associates v. Comedy Club, Inc.,  553 F.3d 1277 (9th Cir. ), petition for cert. filed June 8, 2009 (08-1529), in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that manifest disregard of the law remained viable after Hall Street because it fell within the ambit of Federal Arbitration Act Section 10(a)(4), and vacated an award on the ground that the arbitrator’s interpretation of applicable state law was “fundamentally incorrect,” albeit made in good faith. 

The briefs in support of and in opposition to both petitions, as well as the lower court decisions, can be obtained by visiting one of our favorite blogs, the SCOTUSblog, here and  here.  It will be interesting to see whether the United States Supreme Court decides to grant certiorari in any or all of these cases.   

On a related matter, Petitioners’ and amici merits briefs in  Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 548 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2009), petition for cert. granted June 15, 2009 (No. 08-1198) can be accessed via the American Bar Association’s website, here.  Respondent’s briefs are due later in October and oral argument has been scheduled for December 9, 2009.  (See Russ Kunkel’s LawMemo Arbitration Blog here).  We have written extensively on Stolt-Nielsen, which concerns whether class arbitration may be imposed on parties whose contracts are silent on that point.  (Posts available here,  here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.)  

 Finally, we are following the petition for certiorari filed in the American Express Merchants’ Litigation (blogged here), which has not yet come up for conference.   The Amex Merchants’ Litigation concerns whether class arbitration waivers comport with federal antitrust policy. 

We shall keep readers apprised of developments as and when they occur.  .  .  .

Jackson v. Rent-a-Center West, Inc.: Who Gets to Decide Whether an Arbitration Agreement is Unconscionable when the Parties Clearly and Unmistakably Say the Arbitrators Decide Arbitrability?

September 23rd, 2009 Arbitrability, Unconscionability, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2 Comments »

I.            Introduction

We have explained in prior posts the First Options/AT&T Technologies rule that arbitrators get to decide arbitrability when the parties clearly and unmistakably so agree.  (See, e.g., here and here.)  That’s all well and good, but what happens when:  (a)  two parties sign an arbitration agreement which says, among other things, that the arbitrators shall decide any claim, including any claim concerning the applicability, formation or enforceability of the arbitration agreement; and (b) despite that clear and unmistakable agreement to arbitrate arbitrability, one of the parties challenges the arbitration agreement in court on unconscionability grounds?      

That is, for all practical purposes, what happened in Jackson v. Rent-a-Center West, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, slip op. (9th Cir. Sept. 9, 2009) (here).  And the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 2-1 that the court gets to decide the question.  Continue Reading »