main image

Archive for September, 2024

Clause Conflicts: Supreme Court, New York County Finds Arbitration and Jurisdiction/Venue Clauses do not Conflict

September 30th, 2024 American Arbitration Association, Applicability of Federal Arbitration Act, Application to Stay Arbitration, Arbitrability, Arbitrability | Clear and Unmistakable Rule, Arbitrability | Existence of Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Arbitration Provider Rules, Arbitration Providers, Authority of Arbitrators, Clear and Unmistakable Rule, Conflict between Arbitration Clause and Another Clause, Drafting Arbitration Agreements, FAA Chapter 1, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Formation of Arbitration Agreement, Gateway Disputes, Gateway Questions, Jurisdiction Clause, New York County, New York State Courts, State Courts, Stay of Arbitration, Venue No Comments »

clauseWhat happens if a contract containing a broad arbitration clause also contains a clause that provides for federal or state court personal jurisdiction and venue over claims that would also fall within the scope of the arbitration clause? If you’ve ever worked on an insurance or reinsurance case in which the policy or contract contained both an arbitration agreement and a service of suit clause, then you’re probably familiar with how courts typically deal with apparent conflicts of that sort.

A service of suit clause—commonly found in, among others, London Market insurance and reinsurance policies and contracts—is a consent to personal jurisdiction provision that provides for personal jurisdiction in a court of competent subject-matter jurisdiction selected by the plaintiff or petitioner. See, e.g., Brooke Group Ltd. v. JCH Syndicate 488, 87 N.Y.2d 530, 534 (1996). It might provide, for example: “‘in the event of the failure of the Underwriters hereon to pay any amount claimed to be due’ the underwriters will, ‘at the request of the Insured. . . submit to the jurisdiction of a Court of competent jurisdiction within the United States.’” JCH Syndicate 488, 87 N.Y.2d at 534 (quoting service-of-suit clause).

At least at first glance, service of suit clauses appear to conflict with the kind of broad arbitration agreements typically found in reinsurance treaties and many London Market policies written for the U.S. excess and surplus lines market. Submitting to the jurisdiction of a court of competent jurisdiction in the event of a party’s failure to pay any amount claimed to be due under a contract seems antithetical to submitting the same failure to pay claim to arbitration.

Contentions of this sort have—not surprisingly—been made, but the Courts usually resolve them by harmonizing the service-of-suit clause with the arbitration clause, finding that the service-of-suit clause complements the arbitration clause by facilitating arbitration enforcement litigation. See, e.g., Pine Top Receivables of Illinois, LLC v. Transfercom, Ltd., 836 F.3d 784, 787 (7th Cir. 2016) (“Read as a whole, the reinsurance agreement[’s service of suit clause] requires Transfercom to submit to the jurisdiction of any court of competent jurisdiction chosen by PTRIL, whether it be to determine the arbitrable nature of the dispute, to confirm an arbitration award, to compel arbitration, or to resolve on the merits, a claim not subject to arbitration—including PTRIL’s breach of contract claim”); The Pointe on Westshore LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 670 F. Supp. 3d 1342, 1349-53 (M.D. Fla. 2023) (citing numerous cases).

As today’s case—Kennelly v. Myron & Selina Siegel Family Ltd. P’ship LP, No. 654950/2023, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 33278 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. Sept. 17, 2024)—aptly demonstrates, apparent conflicts between arbitration agreements and venue or jurisdiction provisions in other types of contracts are addressed in a similar manner. They are resolved according to state law contract interpretation principles, and if the contract provisions can be harmonized, then the interpretation that gives effect to both provisions must prevail.

Clause Conflicts: Background

The interpretation issue in Kennelly arose out of an operating agreement (the “Operating Agreement”) for a limited liability company (the “LLC”). Two members and a manager (the “Arbitration Petitioners”) demanded arbitration against another member and another manager (the “Arbitration Respondents”), alleging that the LLC “and. . . [the Arbitration Respondent manager] failed to pay [those Arbitration Petitioners] all of the monies owed to [them] under the Operating Agreement, including the proper distributive share of [the LLC’s] net profits, and failed to properly manage and operate the venture’s property.” 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. at * 3. The Arbitration Petitioners sought between $1 million and 10 million dollars in damages, as well as interest, legal fees and expenses. Id.

The Operating Agreement (at Section 12.13) contained an arbitration agreement, which provided, in pertinent part:

Each Member agrees that the arbitration procedures set forth below shall be the sole and exclusive method for resolving and remedying claims for money damages arising out of a breach of this agreement (the ‘Disputes’); provided that nothing in this Section 12.13 shall prohibit a party hereto from instituting litigation to enforce any Final Determination (as defined below). The Members hereby acknowledge and agree that except as otherwise provided in this Section 12.13 or in the Commercial Arbitration Rules (the ‘Rules’) promulgated by the American Arbitration Association as in effect from time to time, the arbitration procedures and any Final Determination hereunder shall be governed by, and shall be enforced pursuant to the United States Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq. . . .

(b) . . . . The arbitration shall be conducted in New York, NY, under the Rules as in effect from time to time. The arbitrator shall conduct the arbitration so that a final result, determination, finding, judgment and/or award (the “Final Determination”) is made or rendered as soon as practicable.

(c) Any applicable Member may enforce any Final Determination in any state or federal court of competent jurisdiction. For the purposes of any action or proceeding instituted with respect to any Final Determination, each party hereto hereby irrevocably submits to the jurisdiction of such courts, irrevocably consents to the service of process by registered mail or personal service and hereby irrevocably waives, to the fullest extent permitted by law, any objection which it my have or hereafter have as to personal jurisdiction, the laying of the venue of any such action or proceeding bought in any such court and any claim that any such action or proceeding brought in any court has been brought in an inconvenient forum.

2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 33278 at *4 (quoting Operating Agreement, § 12.13).

Section 12.14 of the Operating Agreement, “Venue,” stated:

Any suit, action or proceeding seeking to enforce any provision of, or based on any matter arising out of or in connection with this Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby or thereby may be brought in any state or federal court in The City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, and each Member hereby consents to the exclusive jurisdiction of any court in the State of New York (and of the appropriate appellate courts therefrom) in any suit, action or proceeding and irrevocably waives, to the fullest extent permitted by law, any objections which he, she or it may now or hereafter have to the laying of the venue of any such suit, action or proceeding in any such court or that any such suit, action or proceeding which is brought in any such court has been brought in an inconvenient forum. Each Member hereby waives the right to commence an action, suit or proceeding seeking to enforce any provision of, or based on any matter arising out of or in connection with this Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby or thereby in any court outside of The City of New York, Borough of Manhattan.

2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 33278 at *4 (quoting Operating Agreement, § 12.14).

The Arbitration Respondent brought a special proceeding in Supreme Court, New York County (the “special proceeding”), which sought, among other things,  to stay the arbitration on the ground that the Arbitration Petitioner’s  claims were not arbitrable. According to the Arbitration-Respondent (petitioner in the special proceeding), “the Operating Agreement’s separate venue provision, Section 12.14, conflicts with the arbitration provision and, as such, there was no meeting of the minds. . . .” N.Y. Slip Op. 33278 at *7. The Court rejected this argument. N.Y. Slip Op. 33278 at *7 & 8.

Clause Conflicts: Discussion

At the outset the Court noted that the parties agreed that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) applied, and that where, as here, the existence of an arbitration agreement is at issue, the court decides the question. N.Y. Slip Op. 33278 at *6-7 (citations omitted). It pointed out that there is no dispute that the parties entered into the Operating Agreement and that the Agreement is binding. In the arbitration provision,  Section 12.13, the parties unambiguously agreed that arbitration pursuant to the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”)’s Commercial Arbitration Rules was the “‘sole and exclusive method for resolving and remedying claims for money damages arising out of a breach’ of the Operating Agreement.” N.Y. Slip Op. 33278 at *7.

The Court explained that the alleged conflict between Section 12.13 and Section 12.14 was false. Under New York contract interpretation rules, courts must avoid interpretations that would render contractual provisions without meaning, and if reasonably possible, allegedly conflicting provisions should be harmonized, giving both force and effect. N.Y. Slip Op. 33278 at *7 (citations omitted).

The Court cited five cases where New York courts had harmonized similar apparent conflicts between arbitration clauses and jurisdiction-related clauses, including one involving a clause providing for “exclusive jurisdiction” in New York State courts. N.Y. Slip Op. 33278 at *7.  Three of these were decided by the Appellate Division, First Department, and two by the Supreme Court, New York County. See N.Y. Slip Op. 33278 at *7 (citing cases).

The Court had little difficulty harmonizing the arbitration (Section 12.13) and jurisdiction and venue clause (Section 12.14). The arbitration clause applied only to claims for money damages. That arbitration clause further provided that “the arbitration mandate [did] not ‘prohibit a party hereto from instituting litigation to enforce  any’ final arbitration determination.” N.Y. Slip Op. 33278 at *8 (quoting Section 12.13). The jurisdiction and venue clause said that “any ‘suit, action, or proceeding’ seeking to enforce any provision of the Operating Agreement, or any matter arising out of the agreement, ‘may be brought in any state or federal court’ located in new York County and that the parties consent to exclusive jurisdiction in any such court.” N.Y. Slip Op. 33278 at *8 (quoting Section 12.14).

From that, in turn, the Court drew three conclusions, which collectively demonstrated that the clauses were in harmony:

  1. Because Section 12.13 required arbitration only of monetary relief claims, claims for “equitable or other relief —e.g., specific performance or to stay or compel arbitration—must be brought in a court, and Section 12.14 would apply to any such suit.” N.Y. Slip Op. 33278 at *8 (citation omitted; emphasis in original).
  2. The arbitration clause (Section 12.13) refers to suits brought to enforce arbitration awards and Section 12.14 governed jurisdiction and venue for those suits. N.Y. Slip Op. 33278 at *8.
  3. The ejusdem generis canon of contract construction indicates that the specific should prevail over the general, and here the arbitration clause is “a specific, mandatory clause” while the jurisdiction and venue provision is “a general clause. . . .” Id.  

The Court thus held that “the plain language of Sections 12.13 and 12.14 permits an interpretation that does not result in an irreconcilable conflict between the two provisions or in one provision being rendered meaningless.” N.Y. Slip Op. 33278 at *8.

Delegation of Arbitrability to the Arbitrator

There were two other issues before the Court, one of which we’ll briefly address. The Arbitration Respondent argued that the Arbitration Petitioner’s claims were all “derivative in nature and should be precluded on that ground as well.” N.Y. Slip Op. 33278 at *8. In response, the Arbitration Petitioner argued that whether the claims were derivative [i.e., would have to be brought on behalf of the LLC], and if so, whether they were subject to arbitration, presented questions of arbitrability—questions the parties had delegated to the arbitrator by incorporating the AAA Commercial Rules into their contract. The Arbitration Respondent also apparently made arguments about “lack of proper service or notice,” but the Court’s opinion does not provide details on those claims.

The Arbitration Petitioner argued that these questions concerning the allegedly derivative nature of the claims, and proper service and notice, all had to be submitted to arbitration. The Court agreed with the Arbitration Petitioner.

The parties did not dispute that they had agreed to arbitrate according to the AAA Commercial Rules, which provided “that the ‘arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim.’” N.Y. Slip Op. 33278 at *9 (quotation and citation omitted).

Citing Second Circuit and New York state court authority, the Court explained that incorporation of the AAA Commercial Rules into an arbitration agreement delegates arbitrability questions to the arbitrator. See N.Y. Slip Op. 33278 at *9 (citing and quoting Contec Corp. v. Remote Solution, Co., 398 F.3d 205, 208 (2d Cir. 2005); other citations omitted); see, e.g., post here. The Court therefore held that the derivative-claim, notice, and service claims raised questions of arbitrability, which the Arbitration Respondent was required to submit to arbitration. N.Y. Slip Op. 33278 at *10.

Contacting the Author

If you have any questions about this article, arbitration, arbitration-law, arbitration-related litigation, then please contact Philip J. Loree Jr., at (516) 941-6094 or PJL1@LoreeLawFirm.com.

Philip J. Loree Jr. is principal of the Loree Law Firm, a New York attorney who focuses his practice on arbitration and associated litigation. A former BigLaw partner, he has nearly 35 years of experience representing a wide variety of corporate, other entity, and individual clients in matters arising under the Federal Arbitration Act, as well as in insurance or reinsurance-related and other matters.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING NOTICE: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

 Photo Acknowledgment

The photo featured in this post was licensed from Yay Images and is subject to copyright protection under applicable law.

 

Southern District of California Dismisses Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

September 25th, 2024 Amount in Controversy, Application to Vacate, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Awards, Challenging Arbitration Awards, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 10, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, Federal Courts, Federal Question, Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Look Through, Petition to Vacate Award, Post-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Practice and Procedure, Section 10, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Vacate, Vacatur Comments Off on Southern District of California Dismisses Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

vacate subject-matter jurisdictionWe’ve repeatedly emphasized that—particularly since  Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1 (2022)—subject-matter jurisdiction issues arising out of petitions to confirm, vacate, modify, or correct arbitration awards present traps for the unwary. (See, e.g., posts here, , herevacate subject matter jurisdiction, and here.) White v. U.S. Center For SafeSport, No. 22-cv-04468-JD, slip op. (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2024), illustrates another subject- matter jurisdiction problem that arises, especially post-Badgerow: Is the amount-in-controversy requirement met when a petitioner seeks to vacate a “take nothing” award? The Court said the answer is “no,” at least in the circumstances of the case before it.

Petition to Vacate: Background

Respondent, United States Center for SafeSport (“SafeSport”) has been charged by Congress with “investigat[ing] and adjudicat[ing] allegations of sexual abuse and misconduct within U.S. Olympic and Paralympic organizations. Slip op. at 1 (citing 36 U.S.C. § 220541(a)). SafeSport investigated horse training and riding instructor Charles White (“White”) for allegedly engaging, over a period of three decades, in sexual misconduct against minors and adult females who participated in equestrian sports. Concluding those allegations had merit, SafeSport banned for life White from participating in in Olympic and Paralympic activities.   Slip op. at 1.

SafeSport’s rules provided White with an option to submit to arbitration the question whether the lifetime ban was warranted. White pursued that option but the arbitrator made an award upholding the ban. Slip op. at 1-2.

White petitioned the District Court for the Southern District of California to vacate the award under Section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). He alleged diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), which required him to show not only diversity of citizenship but also that the amount-in-controversy exceeded $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

The petition sought to: (a) vacate the award, which awarded neither him nor anyone else any monetary relief, and simply upheld the lifetime ban; or (b) remand the award for reconsideration. The petition was bereft of any allegations or evidence demonstrating that the amount-in-controversy requirement was met. Slip op. at 2 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)).

The Court ordered White to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed on subject matter jurisdiction grounds. Initially, White submitted to the Court a declaration stating “he had lost more than $75,000 in income as a hay dealer and horse stable operator ‘as a direct result’ of the arbitration decision.” Slip op. at 2 (quoting Dkt. No. 44 ¶ 4). The Court dismissed the case because White did not amend his petition to make those allegations but granted leave for White “to ‘articulate the basis for his claim that the amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied for purposes of diversity jurisdiction,’ among other possible amendments.” Slip op. at 2 (quoting Dkt. No. 47).

White’s amended petition “include[d] the hay dealer and stable operator losses mentioned in his declaration[,]” and “contend[ed] that the losses were ‘a direct result of [the arbitrator’s] decision, which upheld the sanction of lifetime ineligibility to participate in the sport.’” Slip op. at 2 (quoting Dkt. No. 48 ¶ 10).

Discussion: No Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Petition to Vacate

Focusing on the allegation that the losses directly resulted from the arbitrator “upheld[ing]” the ban, the Court found White’s amended subject-matter jurisdiction allegations to be flawed. “Vacating the arbitration decision or remanding for new arbitration proceedings,” said the Court, “which is the sole relief White seeks in the amended petition, might start the arbitration process anew, but it would not overrule or otherwise reverse the ban imposed by SafeSport.” Slip op. at 2 (record citation omitted).

“The SafeSport ban[,]” explained the Court, “remains in full effect unless an arbitrator were to decide otherwise, which has not happened.” Slip op. at 2. Even if the Court vacated the award, that “would not restore to White the income he says he lost in his hay and stables businesses.” Slip op. at 2. White would not recover any of its losses because, even in the event of vacatur, the lifetime ban would remain effective. Slip op. at 3.

The Court explained that where, as here, an action seeks “nonmonetary relief, ‘the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation.’” Slip op. at 3 (quoting Maine Community Health Options v. Albertsons Cos., Inc., 993 F.3d 720, 723 (9th Cir. 2021))(quotation and citation omitted).

The Court concluded that White had failed to satisfy his burden to show that the amount in controversy requirement had been met “because a remand for further arbitration proceedings would not terminate or reverse the SafeSport ban, and would not restore the lost income White alleges. . . .” Slip op. at 3 (citations omitted).

White argued that Badgerow’s requirement that “the determination of subject matter jurisdiction over petitions to vacate under the FAA looks only to ‘the face of the application itself[,]’” Badgerow, 596 U.S. at 9, was inapplicable. According to White, that requirement applied only when the basis for the petition was federal question, as it was in Badgerow. Slip op. at 3. But the Court said “there is no good reason why an FAA petition based on diversity jurisdiction should be treated any differently[]” from one falling under federal question jurisdiction, and White offered none. Slip op. at 3.

But the Court did not decide whether or not White’s argument might have merit “because, as discussed, White’s petition comes up short under established principles of diversity jurisdiction.” Slip op. at 3.

The Court also pointed out that White’s reliance on Theis Research, Inc. v. Brown & Bain, 400 F.3d 659 (9th Cir. 2005), was misplaced. Theis was a legal malpractice case in which the arbitrator awarded no monetary relief to either side. The client plaintiff filed in federal court a notice of motion to vacate, an application to vacate and a complaint seeking more than $200 million in damages. The defendant law firm moved to confirm the award. The Court denied the motion to vacate, granted the motion to confirm and entered summary judgment for the law firm on the complaint.

The Ninth Circuit determined that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction based on “‘the amount at stake in the underlying litigation.’” Slip op. at 4 (quoting 400 F.3d at 662-65.) “Because[,]” said the Court, the [Theis] plaintiff ‘sought to obtain by its district court complaint substantially what it had sought to obtain in the arbitration,’ the circuit court had no trouble concluding that the prayer for more than $200 million in damages established the required amount in controversy.” Slip op. at 4 (quoting 400 F.3d at 662-65).

The Court said the circumstances here were completely different in that there were no damages claims before the arbitrator, and that, in any event, “[i]t is also not clear that Theis survives Badgerow and its rejection of the ‘look-through’ approach to subject matter jurisdiction.” Slip op. at 4 (citing Badgerow, 596 U.S. at 9). We are not sure that is necessarily so because Theis involved a claim seeking more than $200 million damages, and the amount in controversy was not solely based (and did not have to be based) on the amount in controversy in the arbitration but on the $200 million-plus amount the complaint sought.

The Court found that granting further leave to amend was unwarranted and “dismissed [the case] on jurisdictional grounds without prejudice to a vacatur proceeding in state court, as circumstances might permit.”  Slip op. at 4.

Contacting the Author

If you have any questions about this article, arbitration, arbitration-law, arbitration-related litigation, then please contact Philip J. Loree Jr., at (516) 941-6094 or PJL1@LoreeLawFirm.com.

Philip J. Loree Jr. is principal of the Loree Law Firm, a New York attorney who focuses his practice on arbitration and associated litigation. A former BigLaw partner, he has nearly 35 years of experience representing a wide variety of corporate, other entity, and individual clients in matters arising under the Federal Arbitration Act or state arbitration law, as well as in insurance or reinsurance-related and other matters.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING NOTICE: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

 Photo Acknowledgment

The photos featured in this post were licensed from Yay Images and are subject to copyright protection under applicable law.

 

Charles Bennett, Richard D. Faulkner, and Philip J. Loree Jr. Participate in Federalist Society Webinar Discussing SCOTUS’s 2023 Term Arbitration Decisions  

September 20th, 2024 and Podcasts, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Charles Bennett, CPR Video Interviews, Events, FAA Chapter 1, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Courts, Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR), Loree and Faulkner Interviews, Practice and Procedure, Professor Angela Downes, Professor Downes, Richard D. Faulkner, Russ Bleemer, The Federalist Society, United States Supreme Court Comments Off on Charles Bennett, Richard D. Faulkner, and Philip J. Loree Jr. Participate in Federalist Society Webinar Discussing SCOTUS’s 2023 Term Arbitration Decisions  

Rick Faulkner, Chuck Bennett, and Phil Loree As readers may remember on May 29, 2024, our friend and colleague Russ Bleemer, Editor of Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation, Newsletter of the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) (“CPR Alternatives”), interviewed our friends and colleagues—Professor Angela Downes, University of North Texas-Dallas College of Law Professor of Practice and Assistant Director of Experiential Education; arbitrator, mediator, arbitration-law attorney,  former judge, and overall arbitration guru, Richard D. Faulkner (“Rick Faulkner”); and yours truly, Loree Law Firm principal, Philip J. Loree Jr.— about the three arbitration cases the United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) heard and decided this 2023 Term: (a) Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, 601 U.S. 246 (2024); (b) Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472 (2024); and (c) Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, 602 U.S. ___ (2024). (See here and here.) That interview was one of several that we have given to CPR concerning arbitration law developments. (See, e.g.,  here, here, and here.) All of them are posted on CPR’s YouTube channel, @CPRInstituteOnline.

On September 10, 2024, Rick Faulkner, whom regular readers should know well by now;  highly-skilled and successful trial lawyer (and former pro basketball player), Charles Bennett (“Chuck Bennett”); and the author, Philip J. Loree Jr., participated in a Federalist Society webinar entitled “Recent Supreme Court Decisions: Implications for the Business World.”  (See here.) The webinar was sponsored by the Federalist Society’s Litigation Practice Group, and hosted by Caroline Bryant, Associate Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society, who introduced the panel’s members and otherwise ensured that things ran smoothly.  Chuck Bennett’s, Rick Faulkner’s, and my own Federalist Society bios are here, here, and here.

As the Federalist Society aptly put it, “[t]he U.S. Supreme Court continues to shape arbitration law through a strict interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), with each term introducing new nuances.” (See here.) The webinar was designed to “explore Supreme Court decisions from the latest term and examine recent interpretations by federal appeals courts, focusing on their impact on arbitration practice.” (See here.)  It sought to “offer practical insights into the evolving landscape of arbitration law, updates for attorneys to ensure compliance with the latest legal developments, and strategies to optimize arbitration for clients currently using or considering arbitration.” (See here.)

Rick Faulkner, Chuck Bennett, and I discussed in detail the Bissonnette, Spizzirri, and Coinbase decisions, as well as “infinite arbitration clauses,” subject matter jurisdiction, and a recent highly publicized (but now voluntarily resolved) arbitration dispute concerning the Walt Disney Company. Chuck provided the unique perspective of a trial lawyer thoroughly versed in arbitration matters.

You can view the webinar here. That link also allows you to download it, or listen to it on Apple, Google, Spotify, or Amazon podcast platforms.

Chuck, Rick Faulkner, and I express our sincere gratitude to Caroline, the Federalist Society’s Litigation Group, and the Federalist Society itself, for sponsoring the program and giving us an opportunity to share with others some of our thoughts on arbitration-law matters, including the arbitration-law cases SCOTUS decided this year.

Please note that, as set forth in its website, “the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.” (See here.)

Contacting the Author

If you have any questions about this article, arbitration, arbitration-law, arbitration-related litigation, then please contact Philip J. Loree Jr., at (516) 941-6094 or PJL1@LoreeLawFirm.com.

Philip J. Loree Jr. is principal of the Loree Law Firm, a New York attorney who focuses his practice on arbitration and associated litigation. A former BigLaw partner, he has nearly 35 years of experience representing a wide variety of corporate, other entity, and individual clients in matters arising under the Federal Arbitration Act, as well as in insurance or reinsurance-related and other matters.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING NOTICE: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

 Photo Acknowledgment

The photo featured in this post was licensed from Yay Images and is subject to copyright protection under applicable law.

 

 

Ineffective Objections and Untimely Filings Lead to FAA Forfeiture: Sivanesan v. YBF, LLC, ___ A.D. 3d ___, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 4327 (2d Dep’t 2024)

September 4th, 2024 Applicability of Federal Arbitration Act, Application to Confirm, Application to Vacate, Arbitrability, Arbitrability - Nonsignatories, Arbitrability | Clear and Unmistakable Rule, Arbitrability | Existence of Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Award Confirmed, Challenging Arbitration Awards, Clear and Unmistakable Rule, Confirm Award | Exceeding Powers, Confirmation of Awards, Delegation Agreements, Enforcing Arbitration Agreements, Existence of Arbitration Agreement, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 10, FAA Section 11, FAA Section 9, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, Federal Arbitration Act Section 11, Federal Arbitration Act Section 9, First Department, First Options Reverse Presumption of Arbitrability, First Principle - Consent not Coercion, Formation of Arbitration Agreement, Grounds for Vacatur, Modify or Correct Award, New York Arbitration Law (CPLR Article 75), Petition or Application to Confirm Award, Petition to Vacate Award, Post-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Practice and Procedure, Procedural Arbitrability, Questions of Arbitrability, Rights and Obligations of Nonsignatories, Second Department, Section 10, Section 11, Section 9, Service of Process, State Arbitration Law, Time Limit for Vacating, Modifying, or Correcting Award, Vacate Award | 10(a)(4), Vacate Award | Arbitrability, Vacate Award | Excess of Powers, Vacate Award | Existence of Arbitration Agreement Comments Off on Ineffective Objections and Untimely Filings Lead to FAA Forfeiture: Sivanesan v. YBF, LLC, ___ A.D. 3d ___, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 4327 (2d Dep’t 2024)

Objections Must be Timely and Effective in Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Including Litigation Relating to Consulting AgreementsA good chunk of FAA practice and procedure —including FAA practice and procedure in state court—involves knowing when, how, and why to make timely and effective objections and filings in arbitration enforcement litigation.  Sivanesan v. YBF, LLC, ___ A.D. 3d ___, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 4327 (2d Dep’t 2024), which New York’s Appellate Division, Second Department, decided on August 28, 2024, illustrates this point well.

Appellants were not signatories to the arbitration agreement, did not agree to arbitrate any matters, and did not clearly and unmistakably agree to arbitrate questions of arbitrability. But the Court found that they participated in the arbitration without lodging adequate objections to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction and did not timely file in the confirmation litigation their petition to vacate the awards at issue. Accordingly, the Appellants were—by their participation in the arbitration without effective objections to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction—deemed to have impliedly consented to arbitrate all issues before the arbitrator, including whether they were bound by the contract and arbitration agreement as successors-in-interest. Not a happy place to be.

Background

The transactions pertinent to Sivanesan began in 2008 when YBF, LLC (“YBF”) sold to Cosmetics Specialties, East LLC (“CSE”) an exclusive license to Continue Reading »