main image

Archive for the ‘Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure’ Category

« Older Entries

Overturning Arbitration Awards based on Clear Mistakes of Historical Fact or Conceded Nonfacts: Some Further Thoughts (Part IV): Will the Seventh Circuit Reverse the UpHealth District Court?

November 14th, 2024 Appellate Practice, Application to Vacate, Arbitration Agreements, Authority of Arbitrators, Award Fails to Draw Essence from the Agreement, Award Vacated, Awards, Challenging Arbitration Awards, Exceeding Powers, FAA Section 10, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards, Manifest Disregard of the Agreement, Manifest Disregard of the Law, Outcome Review, Petition to Vacate Award, Post-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Practice and Procedure, Standard of Review, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, United States Supreme Court, Vacate, Vacate Award | 10(a)(4), Vacate Award | Manifest Disregard of the Law, Vacatur for Conceded Nonfact or Clear Mistake of Historical Fact No Comments »

Seventh CircuitWill the Seventh Circuit reverse the judgment in the UpHealth case?

In our October 7, 2024, post, “Can a Court under Section 10(a)(4) Overturn an Award Because it was Based on a Clear Mistake of Historical Fact or a Conceded Nonfact?”, we discudssed UpHealth Holdings, Inc. v. Glocal Healthcare Sys. PVT, No. 24-cv-3778, slip op. (N.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2024), which granted partial vacatur of an arbitration award because it was, said the Court, based on a “nonfact.” Our October 18, 2024 post, Overturning Arbitration Awards based on Clear Mistakes of Historical Fact or Conceded Nonfacts: Some Further Thoughts (Part I), identified five questions relating to UpHealth designed to shed further light on the case and the arbitration award vacatur standard on which the Court relied.

The first four of those questions were answered in our October 18, October 21, and November 12, 2024, posts. This November 14, 2024, post answers the fifth question: “If there is a [United States Court of Appeals for the] Seventh Circuit appeal of the UpHealth decision, is it likely the decision will be overturned on appeal, and if so, on what grounds?”

We explained in our November 12, 2024, post that UpHealth has appealed the district court decision to the Seventh Circuit. And if you’ve been reading our prior UpHealth posts, then you’ve probably already guessed that the answer is “yes,” it seems likely the Seventh Circuit will reverse the UpHealth decision.

In terms of the grounds, for such a reversal, we think the Seventh Circuit will probably conclude that the only forms of outcome review the Seventh Circuit recognizes is manifest disregard of the contract and violation of public policy, and that UpHealth involves neither of those grounds. That is all the more so where, as here, there is no agreement or concession concerning the allegedly mistaken fact. (See November 12, 2024, post.)

We think the Seventh Circuit may also conclude that recognizing vacatur based on a clear mistake of historical fact or a conceded nonfact would embroil courts in review of the arbitrator’s fact findings, including the sufficiency of evidence. Under Seventh Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court authority, the FAA does not authorize such review.  Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564, 566-70 (2013); Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 671-72, 676-77 (2010). Major League Baseball Players Assoc. v. Garvey, 532 U.S. 504, 509-10, 511 (2001); Hill v. Norfolk & Western Ry., 814 F.2d 1192, 1194-95 (7th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted) (Posner, J.); American Zurich Ins. Co. v. Sun Holdings, Inc., 103 F.4th 475, 477-78 (7th Cir. 2024) (Easterbrook, J.); Affymax, Inc. v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharms., Inc., 660 F.3d 281, 284 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing George Watts & Son, Inc. v. Tiffany & Co., 248 F.3d 577 (7th Cir.2001); Eljer Mfg., Inc. v. Kowin Development Corp., 14 F.3d 1250, 1254, 1256 (7th Cir. 1994).

We discussed all of these shortcomings in the UpHealth Court’s analysis in our October 7, 18, 21, and November 12, 2024, posts. We believe that the Seventh Circuit will probably also conclude that the UpHealth court erred by vacating the award in part, particularly since the Seventh Circuit recognizes outcome review in extremely narrow circumstances only and none of those circumstances are present here—where the district court has, for intents and purposes, second-guessed the arbitrator’s fact finding.

It will be interesting to see how the appellee (Damodaran) attempts to square the district court’s decision with Seventh Circuit and Supreme Court authority. We will continue to watch the appeal and report on significant developments.

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

 

International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) Interviews Professor Angela Downes, Richard D. Faulkner, and Philip J. Loree Jr. about the Heckman v. Live Nation Entertainment Ninth Circuit Mass Arbitration Decision

November 13th, 2024 Appellate Practice, Applicability of Federal Arbitration Act, Application to Compel Arbitration, Arbitrability, Arbitrability | Clear and Unmistakable Rule, Arbitration Agreement Invalid, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Arbitration Provider Rules, Arbitration Providers, Challenging Arbitration Agreements, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Class Arbitration Waivers, Clear and Unmistakable Rule, CPR Alternatives, CPR Video Interviews, Delegation Agreements, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 2, FAA Section 4, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 2, Federal Arbitration Act Section 4, International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR), Mass Arbitration, New Era ADR, Petition to Compel Arbitration, Philip J. Loree Jr., Practice and Procedure, Pre-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Professor Angela Downes, Professor Downes, Repeat Players, Richard D. Faulkner, Russ Bleemer, Section 2, Section 4, The Loree Law Firm, Unconscionability, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit No Comments »

CPR Interview

Heckman

Do you want to learn more about the Heckman mass arbitration case?

As readers may know, over the last four years or so, 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”), has hosted presentations about significant arbitration-law developments (principally in the United States Supreme Court) that feature interviews of 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, and former judge, Richard D. Faulkner; and yours truly, Loree Law Firm principal, Philip J. Loree Jr. (See, e.g., here, here, here, and here.) These interviews are posted on CPR’s YouTube channel, @CPRInstituteOnline.

On Monday, November 11, 2024, Russ interviewed Professor Downes, Rick and me about the Ninth Circuit’s recent mass-arbitration decision in Heckman v. Live Nation Entertainment, No. 23-55770, slip op. (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2024). The video is here.

Heckman

The Heckman case centered around unusual mass-arbitration rules promulgated and administered by New Era ADR, which among many other things, included a broad delegation provision, which delegated to the arbitrator the authority to decide the validity of the parties’ arbitration agreement. The parties’ online ticket purchase agreement terms (the “Terms”) provided for arbitration pursuant to the New ERA Rules, which in the Heckman case meant New Era’s Rules for Expedited/Mass Arbitration proceedings.

Plaintiffs commenced in 2022 a putative class action against Live Nation Entertainment and Ticketmaster LLC, alleging that the companies violated the Sherman Act by engaging in anticompetitive practices. Those defendants  moved to compel arbitration, but the district court denied the motion, holding that the delegation clause and the arbitration agreement were procedurally and substantively unconscionable under California law.

Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke wrote a very interesting concurring opinion in Heckman in which he said he would have decided the case solely on the ground that the arbitration scheme violated the Discover Bank Rule, which was not preempted by the FAA because the scheme was not arbitration as envisioned by the FAA in 1925. This concurring opinion also discussed in some detail the conflict of interest that arises when arbitrators deciding arbitrability under a delegation clause conclude, or have reason to conclude, that an arbitration provider’s scheme—it’s business model—is unenforceable, pitting the arbitrator’s financial interest in continued employment against his or her neutral-decision-making interests.

Russ, Rick, Angela, and I discuss various aspects pertinent to the Heckman decision in the interview and identify issues that are likely to arise in future cases following the decision.
As always, we express our gratitude to Russ and CPR for hosting these interviews, and, along with Angela and Rick, look forward to contributing to future programs hosted by CPR.

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 commercial and business 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.

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 No Comments »

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 No Comments »

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 »

Sanctions: Seventh Circuit Awards $40,000 in FRAP 38 Fees and Costs in Zurich v. Sun Holdings Case

August 28th, 2024 American Arbitration Association, Appellate Practice, Application to Vacate, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Arbitration Provider Rules, Attorney Fee Shifting, Attorney Fees and Sanctions, Authority of Arbitrators, Award Confirmed, Challenging Arbitration Awards, Confirm Award | Exceeding Powers, Exceeding Powers, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 10, FAA Section 9, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, Federal Arbitration Act Section 9, Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards, Petition or Application to Confirm Award, Petition to Vacate Award, Post-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Practice and Procedure, Section 10, Section 9, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Vacate Award | 10(a)(4), Vacate Award | Attorney Fees, Vacate Award | Attorney's Fees, Vacate Award | Exceeding Powers, Vacate Award | Excess of Powers, Vacatur Comments Off on Sanctions: Seventh Circuit Awards $40,000 in FRAP 38 Fees and Costs in Zurich v. Sun Holdings Case

sanctionsWe previously discussed the Seventh Circuit’s decision in American Zurich Ins. Co. v. Sun Holdings, Inc., 103 F.4th 475 (7th Cir. 2024) (Easterbrook, J.), in which the award challenger Sun Holdings, Inc. (“Sun Holdings”) claimed that the arbitrators exceeded their powers by imposing as sanctions a $175,000.00 attorney fee award, which they claimed, among other things, was barred by the language of the contract. (See our prior post, here.) The problem was that the arbitrators at least arguably interpreted the language in question and concluded that it did not bar the award of attorney fees in question. And the attorney fee  award comported with New York law and the American Arbitration Association Commercial Rules, both of which the parties made part of their agreement.

The challenger further undermined its position by not acknowledging the existence of controlling Seventh Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court authority and engaging in the arbitration proceedings what the Seventh Circuit believed was recalcitrant behavior. The challenger compounded that by attempting to second guess various determinations made by the arbitrators.

That this strategy backfired, exposing Sun Holdings to sanctions, is not surprising. It resulted in the Court issuing an order to show cause providing the challenger 14 days “to show cause why sanctions, including but not limited to an award of attorneys’ fees, should not be imposed for this frivolous appeal.” Zurich, slip op. at 5 (citing Fed. R. App. P. 38).

The Court,  on July 1, 2024,  after considering Sun Holdings challenger’s response to the order to show cause, determined that Fed. R. App. P. (“FRAP”) 38 sanctions were warranted.  The Court “conclude[d] that Sun Holdings must compensate American Zurich for the legal fees and other costs that it was unnecessarily forced to incur by Sun’s unnecessary appeal.” July 3, 2024, Order, No 23-3134, Dkt. 42 at 1 of 2 (7th Cir. July 3, 2024) (available on PACER).

In response to the Order to Show Cause, Sun Holdings argued “that it did not litigate in bad faith because it was entitled to contest the Second Circuit’s understanding of New York law, as represented in ReliaStar Life Insurance Co. v. EMC National Life Co., 564 F.3d 81, 86-89 (2d Cir. 2009).” Dk. 42 at 1 of 2. (Our posts on ReliaStar are here and here.)

“But[,]” said the Court, “the dominant theme of [Sun Holdings’] brief in this court was that we should review and reject the arbitrators’ interpretation of its contract with American Zurich. That line of argument is incompatible with an agreement to arbitrate, as our opinion explains.” Dk. 42 at 1 of 2. The Court proceeded to quote in further support the following passage from its opinion:

[A]s if to highlight the fact that it disdains the limits on judicial review of arbitral awards, Sun wants us to reexamine the arbitrators’ conclusion that it engaged in frivolous conduct (it was “just putting on a defense,” Sun insists) and wants us to say that the arbitrators overestimated the amount of excess fees that American Zurich was compelled to incur. These arguments are unrelated to contractual meaning. They are unabashed requests to contradict the arbitrators’ findings, something the Federal Arbitration Act forbids.

Dk.42 at 2 of 2 (quoting  American Zurich Ins. Co. v. Sun Holdings, Inc. 103 F.4th 475, 478 (7th Cir. 2024) (Easterbrook, J.)).

The Court said “Sun Holdings’ response to our order to show cause does not address that baseless aspect of its appellate argument.” Dk. 42 at 2 of 2. Sanctions, concluded the Court, would be imposed.

Having determined that FRAP 38 sanctions were warranted, the Court ordered American Zurich “to file a statement of the fees and costs incurred in defending its judgment,” giving Sun Holdings an opportunity to respond.

American Zurich originally sought $46,300.30 in fees and costs, but amended its statement to seek $75,250.80. August 21, 2024, Fees and Costs Order, No 23-3134, Dkt. 47 at 1 -2 of 2 (7th Cir. August 21, 2024) (available on PACER).

But the Court ordered Sun Holdings to “pay $40,000 to American Zurich as compensation for this frivolous appeal.” Dkt. 47 at 2 of 2. The Court said that it “declined to award the full amount sought by American Zurich[]” because “[a]n award exceeding [$40,000.00] is difficult to justify, given that much of the legal work should have preceded the appeal and we are not awarding fees for legal work in the district court.” Dkt. 47 at 2 of 2.

Contacting the Author

If you have any questions about this article, arbitration, or 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.

Another Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Mishap, this Time in the Seventh Circuit

August 22nd, 2024 Appellate Jurisdiction, Appellate Practice, Application to Confirm, Application to Vacate, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Award Confirmed, Diversity Jurisdiction, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 10, FAA Section 4, FAA Section 9, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, Federal Arbitration Act Section 9, Federal Courts, Federal Question, Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Comments Off on Another Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Mishap, this Time in the Seventh Circuit

subject-matter-jurisdictionThe Seventh Circuit’s decision in King v. Universal Health Services of Hartgrove, Inc., No. 23-3254, slip op. (7th Cir. August 5, 2024) (nonprecedential disposition), is yet another lesson about how important it is to take great care to ensure that subject-matter and appellate  jurisdiction requirements are met. King may be a “nonprecedential disposition,” but that doesn’t mean one should disregard its lessons.     

Background

The story begins back in December 2018 when employee A (the “Employee”) commenced an action (“Action I”) against employer B (the “Employer”) that asserted various claims, including for employment discrimination based on the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). Employer moved under Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) to compel arbitration based on an agreement Employee signed at the commencement of employment. See 9 U.S.C. § 4.

The district court in Action I granted the motion and entered judgment in May 2020. We cannot tell from the Court’s brief opinion whether anyone requested a stay pending arbitration. (See our recent post on Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472 (2024).)

The arbitration proceeded and the arbitrator made an award in favor of the Employer. Employee commenced a new district court action (“Action II”) in which it sought an order vacating the award. Around the same time, the Employer made a motion in Action I to confirm the award under FAA Section 9. See 9 U.S.C. § 9.

That prompted the Court in Action II to make an order consolidating Action I with Action II. The Court designated no lead case and maintained separate dockets for each Action.

The Court in Action I made an order granting the motion to confirm. More than a month later the Court in Action II entered judgment for the employer, stating “‘[n]o further action’ was needed regarding King’s motion to vacate the award in that case.” Slip op. at 2.

The employer filed a timely notice of appeal in Action II. The notice of appeal referenced the case numbers for Actions I and II, as well as the Action I Court’s 45-day-prior decision confirming the award.

The Action II Court Lacked Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Action I was apparently commenced by the Employee based on federal question jurisdiction, as one of the claims asserted was under the Americans Continue Reading »

Manifest Disregard of the Agreement: Third Circuit Says Arbitrator Rewrote the 10-Day Time Limit For Grievance Filing and Affirms District Court Judgment Vacating Award

July 19th, 2024 Application to Vacate, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Award Fails to Draw Essence from the Agreement, Award Irrational, Award Vacated, Awards, Challenging Arbitration Awards, Enforcing Arbitration Agreements, Exceeding Powers, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 10, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, First Principle - Consent not Coercion, Grounds for Vacatur, Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards, Labor Arbitration, LMRA Section 301, Manifest Disregard of the Agreement, Petition to Vacate Award, Practice and Procedure, Section 10, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Vacate, Vacate Award | 10(a)(4), Vacate Award | Exceeding Powers, Vacate Award | Excess of Powers, Vacatur 1 Comment »

disregard of the agreementAn arbitration award may be vacated for “manifest disregard of the agreement” if the award does not draw its essence from the contract and instead reflects the arbitrator’s own notions of economic or industrial justice. (See, e.g., here, here,  here,  here.)  Such an award exceeds the arbitrator’s powers within the meaning of Section 10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act. 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4) and federal common law in Labor Management Relations Act Section 301 cases (which tracks Section 10(a)(4)).

Arbitration awards do not qualify for vacatur under this manifest disregard of the agreement standard unless the arbitrator did not even arguably interpret the agreement. And if you have any doubts about how much extensive leeway arbitrators have to “arguably interpret” contracts, go back and review the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in  Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564, 566-70 (2013).

The margins for a reasonable argument for manifest disregard of the agreement vacatur are slim, for once the arbitrator offers—or the award is otherwise susceptible to—an even barely plausible interpretation supporting the arbitrator’s award, then it’s game over, even if the barely plausible interpretation is one a court would almost certainly not adopt as its own.

But in StoneMor, Inc. v. The Int’l Bhd. Of Teamsters, Local 469, ___ F.4d ___, No. 23-1489, slip op. (3d Cir. July 10, 2024), the Third Circuit reminds everyone that, while it is “‘a steep climb to vacate an . . . award[,]’” slip op. at 6 (quoting France v. Bernstein, 43 F.4th 210, 219 (3d Cir. 2022)), the Court’s “review is ‘not toothless,’ and [it] will reverse if the arbitrator ‘rewrites the contract[.]’” Slip op. at 6 (quoting Independent Lab’y Employees’ Union, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Research & Engineering Co., 11 F.4th 210, 219 (3d Cir. 2021)). (You can read our France v. Bernstein post here.)

The award before the Court in StoneMor, was the product of an arbitrator who “did just that[,]” and the Court affirmed the district court’s judgment vacating that award—an award which resulted from manifest disregard of the agreement. Slip op. at 6 & 3. Because the Court was able to conclude that the award was not based on—and did not otherwise reflect—an even barely colorable interpretation of the contract, vacatur was warranted. Continue Reading »

Seventh Circuit Blocks Mass Arbitration: Wallrich v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.  

July 16th, 2024 American Arbitration Association, Appellate Jurisdiction, Arbitrability, Arbitrability | Clear and Unmistakable Rule, Arbitrability | Existence of Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Fees, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Arbitration Provider Rules, Arbitration Providers, Authority of Arbitrators, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Class Arbitration Waivers, Clear and Unmistakable Rule, Delegation Agreements, Equal Footing Principle, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Chapter 2, FAA Section 4, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 202, Federal Arbitration Act Section 203, Federal Arbitration Act Section 4, Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Mass Arbitration, Petition to Compel Arbitration, Practice and Procedure, Procedural Arbitrability, Questions of Arbitrability, Richard D. Faulkner, Section 4, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Comments Off on Seventh Circuit Blocks Mass Arbitration: Wallrich v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.  

Mass ArbitrationIntroduction: Mass Arbitration

For many years consumers, employees, and others fought hard—with varying degrees of success—to compel class arbitration, and sellers, employers, and other more economically powerful entities fought equally hard to compel separate arbitrations in multi-claimant situations. Over time, companies included in their agreements—and courts enforced—clear class-arbitration waivers.

That might have been the end of the story but for a stroke of genius on the part of certain plaintiffs’ attorneys. These clever attorneys devised what is now known as “mass arbitration.”

In mass arbitration, as in class arbitration, multiple claimants—each represented by the same lawyer or group of lawyers—assert at the same time numerous  claims against a corporate defendant.

The result is that business entity defendants may be are forced to pay upfront hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in arbitration provider and arbitrator fees as a precondition to defending thousands of individual arbitration proceedings that raise one or more common issues.

Saddling the business entity defendants at the outset with those enormous arbitration fees obviously puts them in an untenable settlement position. The business entities also incur very substantial legal costs for arbitration-related litigation.

Given the vigor with which business entities have opposed class arbitration—which, despite its cumbersome nature, purports to be (but really isn’t) a workable mechanism for resolving multiple, similar, arbitral claims—one can hardly fault a judge for concluding that business entity defendants have reaped what they’ve sown. But it would be strange to think that Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) arbitration should, in multiple claimant situations, boil down to the business entity choosing one form of economic extortion (endless, inefficient, and prohibitively expensive class arbitration) over another (being forced to pay millions of dollars of arbitration fees upfront before being able to defend any of the individual arbitrations).

There have been some recent efforts on the part of arbitration providers to amend their rules to address mass arbitration in a more equitable manner. But those rules, and the ins, outs, and idiosyncrasies of mass arbitration are beyond this post’s ambit.

Our focus instead is on a very important mass-arbitration development: the first U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision to address mass arbitration, Wallrich v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 23-2842, slip op. (7th Cir. July 1, 2024). The case is especially significant because it may portend the end of mass arbitration, at least in the form it typically takes.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit derailed petitioners’ efforts to compel judicially the respondent to pay millions of dollars of arbitration fees demanded by mass arbitration claimants. It did so in two blows, the second more decisive than the first. Continue Reading »

« Older Entries