main image

Archive for the ‘Richard D. Faulkner’ Category

« Older Entries

Sixth Circuit Says Employee Physician Assistant Gets to Litigate Her Religious Discrimination Claims Because the Employer Defendants were Guilty of Section 3 Arbitration Default

September 18th, 2025 American Arbitration Association, Amicus Brief Submissions, Appellate Practice, Applicability of Federal Arbitration Act, Applicability of the FAA, Application to Compel Arbitration, Application to Stay Litigation, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Arbitration Providers, Challenging Arbitration Agreements, Charles Bennett, Default in Proceeding with Arbitration, Enforcing Arbitration Agreements, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 3, FAA Section 4, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 3, Federal Arbitration Act Section 4, Forfeiture, Practice and Procedure, Richard D. Faulkner, Section 3 Default, Section 3 Stay of Litigation, Section 4, Stay of Litigation, Stay of Litigation Pending Arbitration, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Waiver of Arbitration No Comments »

Section 3 Arbitration Default | Kloosterman Introduction

Does Section 3 arbitration default result from moving to dismiss the entire case on the merits? The Sixth Circuit says yes.

Since Morgan v. Sundance, 596 U. S. 411 (2022), most of the cases concerning loss of arbitration rights by litigation conduct have focused not on prejudice—Morgan nixed the requirement that arbitration opponents show prejudice to establish forfeiture or waiver, 596 U.S. at 1-2—but on what type and degree of inconsistent-with-arbitration conduct results in a loss of arbitration rights.

But on August 27, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, took a slightly different tack on Section 3 arbitration default. In Kloosterman v. Metropolitan Hospital, No. 24-1398, slip op. (6th Cir. Aug. 27, 2025), the Court reversed a district court order that had compelled arbitration of a physician assistant (“PA”)’s religious discrimination claims. The Sixth Circuit made two significant rulings bearing on loss of arbitration rights by litigation conduct.

First, the Court held— in an opinion written by Circuit Judge Eric Continue Reading »

Eleventh Circuit: Arbitration Provider’s Decision not to Administer Means Arbitration is no Longer Required 

July 1st, 2025 American Arbitration Association, Application to Compel Arbitration, Application to Stay Litigation, Arbitration Fees, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Arbitration Provider Rules, Arbitration Providers, Arbitration Risks, Challenging Arbitration Agreements, Charles Bennett, FAA Section 3, FAA Section 4, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 3, Federal Arbitration Act Section 4, Petition to Compel Arbitration, Practice and Procedure, Richard D. Faulkner, Section 3 Default, Section 3 Stay of Litigation, Section 4, Section 4 "Aggrieved" Requirement, Small and Medium-Sized Business Arbitration Risk, Small Business B-2-B Arbitration, Stay of Litigation, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Waiver of Arbitration Comments Off on Eleventh Circuit: Arbitration Provider’s Decision not to Administer Means Arbitration is no Longer Required 

Introduction

Section 3 Default | Section 4 AggrievedFrom time-to-time, arbitration providers may decline to administer an arbitration. What happens then according to Federal Arbitration Act “FAA”) Section 3 and Section 4? Must the parties arbitrate before an alternative provider or can a party insist on litigating the dispute in court?

If FAA Section 3 and Section 4, as applied to the parties’ agreement and the facts, authorize an order compelling arbitration and staying litigation, arbitration will (or at least should) ordinarily proceed. But as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Merritt Island Woodwerx, LLC v. Space Coast Credit Union, No. 24-10019, slip op. (11th Cir. May 21, 2025) shows, if arbitration cannot be compelled, and litigation stayed—and the agreement can be legitimately construed as not to require further arbitration—then one or more parties can insist on Court resolution of their dispute, including, in an appropriate case, by jury trial.

That’s a big “if,” and an equally big “and,” but if all conditions are satisfied, then an arbitration opponent may have a solid basis for seeking judicial resolution of its dispute. That is ordinarily a big win, and one that is not otherwise easy to come by.

Understanding Merritt Island Woodwerx—and cases of like ilk—can help you identify opportunities to argue that a provider’s decision to proceed no further means arbitration proceed no further. Successfully taking advantage of those opportunities is the key, but if you do not spot them at the outset, then you may lose them.

If you’re an arbitration proponent, then understanding Merritt Island Woodwerx—and how to avoid or mitigate its consequences—is equally  important. The stakes are big: loss of arbitration rights a arbitration proponent had or should have can be an expensive and unwelcome proposition.

Background: What Transpired in Merritt Island Woodwerx?

The dispute was between a credit union (the “Arbitration Proponent”) Continue Reading »

Some Things to Consider Seriously Before You Agree to Arbitrate: An Arbitration Award may Direct You to Pay Your Adversary’s Attorney’s Fees

March 7th, 2025 Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Fees, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Arbitration Provider Rules, Arbitration Providers, Arbitration Risks, Attorney Fee Shifting, Attorney Fees and Sanctions, Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Bad Faith, Charles Bennett, Drafting Arbitration Agreements, Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards, Outcome Risk, Practice and Procedure, Richard D. Faulkner, Small and Medium-Sized Business Arbitration Risk, Small Business B-2-B Arbitration, Uncategorized Comments Off on Some Things to Consider Seriously Before You Agree to Arbitrate: An Arbitration Award may Direct You to Pay Your Adversary’s Attorney’s Fees

Attorney's Fees in ArbitrationThose who agree to arbitration expose themselves to potential awards of attorney’s fees in cases where courts would likely not award fees.

If you’re a small business or an individual there’s a good chance you’re not fully familiar with certain of the risks associated with arbitration. Clients frequently consult with me when they find themselves saddled with unfavorable awards, and some of these persons are ones who, through no fault of their own, did not appreciate the risks involved and might  consequently have missed opportunities to better manage them. In many instances these persons were represented by attorneys who understood that subject matter of the arbitrated disputes, and who were skilled courtroom litigators, but who were not necessarily as well-versed in arbitration-law as are arbitration and arbitration-law practitioners.

This is more than simply an anecdotal observation. My good friends, colleagues, and sometimes co-counsel, Richard D. Faulkner and Charles (“Chuck”) Bennett, who also practice in this field, tell me they share this view and that their experiences are aligned with my own. (Here is a post concerning a Federalist-Society-sponsored webinar Rick, Chuck, and I participated in last year.) Other arbitration attorneys with whom I have spoken also agree.

Readers armed with some practical knowledge may be better able to avoid, mitigate or otherwise manage arbitration risks. It is in that spirit that we discuss a risk that tends to be more severe in arbitration than it is in court litigation:  your exposure to an award of attorney’s fees. As always, nothing we say here is or should be construed as legal advice. If you require legal advice you should engage and consult with an attorney.

Exposure to Liability for Your Adversary’s Legal Fees

A commonly overlooked risk associated with agreeing to arbitrate is that, if you lose, you might be on the wrong end of an award that requires you to reimburse your adversary for some or all of the fees it incurred in the arbitration. To be sure, there is a risk that in court litigation, the court may assess attorney’s fees against a losing party, but as we’ll see, the risk is generally higher in arbitration than it is in court litigation. Worse yet, in arbitration the ability to challenge meaningfully  such an award (or any other award) in court is extremely circumscribed under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). The same is generally so where state arbitration law applies.

No one likes paying attorney fees but they are a necessary incident of dispute resolution, especially resolution of high-dollar disputes. But imagine not only having to pay your own attorney’s fees, but also those of your adversary, an adversary who, in effect, is reimbursed for the fees it incurred in making your life miserable. Continue Reading »

Modern Perfection, LLC v. Bank of America: Fourth Circuit Says Arbitrator gets to Decide which of Two Contracts’ Conflicting Dispute Resolution Provisions Applies

January 27th, 2025 Application to Stay Litigation, Arbitrability, Arbitrability | Clear and Unmistakable Rule, Arbitrability | Existence of Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration Agreement Invalid, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Challenging Arbitration Agreements, Clear and Unmistakable Rule, Delegation Provision, Existence of Arbitration Agreement, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 2, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 3, Federal Arbitration Act Section 4, Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Motion to Compel Arbitration, Practice and Procedure, Richard D. Faulkner, Section 2, Section 3 Stay of Litigation, Section 4, Stay of Litigation, Stay of Litigation Pending Arbitration, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, United States Supreme Court Comments Off on Modern Perfection, LLC v. Bank of America: Fourth Circuit Says Arbitrator gets to Decide which of Two Contracts’ Conflicting Dispute Resolution Provisions Applies

Introduction: Delegation Provisions and Modern Perfection

Delegation Provisions | Arbitrability ChallengeDelegation provisions clearly and unmistakably assign arbitrability determinations to arbitrators, which means they provide for arbitrators to decide arbitrability-related disputes.

Coinbase v. Suski, 602 U.S. 143 (2024) set forth the allocation of power between courts and arbitrators for four “orders” of arbitrability-related disputes:

  1. A “first order” dispute is “[a] contest over the merits of the dispute[,]” the determination of which “depends on the applicable law and relevant facts.” 602 U.S. at 148 (quotation omitted).
  2. A “second order dispute” concerns “whether [the parties] agreed to arbitrate the merits” of the first order dispute. 602 U.S. at 148 (quotation omitted).
  3. A “third order dispute” concerns “who should have the primary power to decide” a second order dispute.” 602 U.S. at 149.
  4. A “fourth order” dispute is one where there are “multiple agreements that conflict as to the third-order question of who decides arbitrability.” 602 U.S. at 149.

Coinbase held that fourth-order disputes are for the courts, which are to decide them based on “traditional contract principles.” 602 U.S. at 149.

In a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decision, Modern Perfection, LLC v. Bank of America, No. 23-1965, slip op. (4th Cir. Jan. 13, 2025), the Court was faced with what appeared to be a “fourth-order” dispute as defined by Suski. The question was who gets to decide arbitrability questions when one contract contained a broad arbitration agreement and a delegation provision and the other a clause that expressly contemplated judicial resolution of disputes.

The problem was that Suski was not decided until briefing in both the district court and the Fourth Circuit was complete, and the arbitration challengers’ argument centered on the scope of the delegation provisions, not on whether the contracts contemplating judicial resolution of disputes superseded the delegation provisions.

The Suski fourth-order dispute issue was first raised in a Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) letter the challenger submitted once Suski was decided.  Because the argument had not been raised in the parties’ appellate briefs, the Court would not hear it, and ruled that, under the terms of the delegation provisions, the arbitrator gets to decide whether the dispute was arbitrable.

Background

Over a five-year period a bank issued to each of six plaintiffs two Continue Reading »

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 1 Comment »

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.

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.

 

 

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 »

U.S. Supreme Court Decides Coinbase II and Promulgates a New Arbitrability Rule Applicable to Multiple, Conflicting Contracts

June 11th, 2024 Application to Compel Arbitration, Application to Stay Litigation, Arbitrability, Arbitrability | Clear and Unmistakable Rule, Arbitrability | Existence of Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Challenging Arbitration Agreements, Clear and Unmistakable Rule, Enforcing Arbitration Agreements, Equal Footing Principle, Existence of Arbitration Agreement, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 2, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, First Options Reverse Presumption of Arbitrability, First Principle - Consent not Coercion, Forum Selection Agreements, Gateway Disputes, Gateway Questions, International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR), Motion to Compel Arbitration, Professor Angela Downes, Richard D. Faulkner, Russ Bleemer, Section 2, Separability, Severability, Substantive Arbitrability, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States Supreme Court 1 Comment »

Introduction

 

Coinbase II - Dogecoin Photo

Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, 602 U.S. ___ (2024) (“Coinbase II”), which the U.S. Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) decided on May 23, 2024, was the last of the three arbitration-law cases SCOTUS heard and decided this 2023 Term. Russ Bleemer, Editor of Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation, Newsletter of the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) (“CPR Alternatives”), recently interviewed University of North Texas-Dallas College of Law Professor Angela Downes; arbitrator, mediator, arbitration-law attorney, and former judge, Richard D. Faulkner; and the author about Coinbase II, and the other two cases, Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, 601 U.S. 246 (2024), and Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. ___ (2024). (See posts here and interview here.) Russ also interviewed Angela, Rick, and the author about Coinbase II back when SCOTUS granted certiorari to hear it, an interview you can view here (see also post, here).

Coinbase II concerned the allocation of power between courts and arbitrators in a situation in which agreements with conflicting dispute-resolution provisions cover or appear to cover some or all of the same, disputed subject matter. The general principles and rules of arbitrability, as applied to the facts,  did not clearly answer the question of who gets to decide whether the parties’ merits dispute was arbitrable, and so the Court created a new rule of arbitrability: “where. . . parties have agreed to two contracts—one sending arbitrability disputes to arbitration and the other either explicitly or implicitly sending arbitrability disputes to the courts—a court must decide which contract governs.” Coinbase II, slip op. at 8. Applying the new rule to the facts, the Court concluded “that a court, not an arbitrator must decide whether the [Coinbase II] parties’ first agreement was superseded by their second.” Slip op. at 8.

Coinbase II: Background

Petitioner Coinbase, Inc. (“Coinbase”) is a cryptocurrency exchange platform Continue Reading »

International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) Interviews Professor Angela Downes, Richard D. Faulkner, and Philip J. Loree Jr. about the Three SCOTUS Cases Decided this Term and More  

June 3rd, 2024 Application to Stay Litigation, Arbitrability, 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, Clear and Unmistakable Rule, CPR Alternatives, CPR Video Interviews, Delegation Agreements, Exemption from FAA, Existence of Arbitration Agreement, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 1, FAA Section 2, FAA Section 3, FAA Transportation Worker Exemption, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 1, Federal Arbitration Act Section 2, Federal Arbitration Act Section 3, Federal Courts, Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, First Options Reverse Presumption of Arbitrability, First Principle - Consent not Coercion, Forum Selection Agreements, Loree and Faulkner Interviews, Professor Angela Downes, Questions of Arbitrability, Richard D. Faulkner, Russ Bleemer, Stay of Litigation, Stay of Litigation Pending Arbitration, United States Supreme Court 1 Comment »

CPR SCOTUS Wrap Up

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 (“SCOTUS”)) 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, and here.) These interviews are posted on CPR’s YouTube channel, @CPRInstituteOnline.

On Wednesday, May 29, 2024, Russ interviewed Professor Downes, Rick and me about the three arbitration cases 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. ___ (2024); and (c) Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, 602 U.S. ___ (2024). We also discussed what one might expect on the arbitration front from the 2024 SCOTUS Term, Samsung’s mass arbitration case pending in the Seventh Circuit, and recent, controversial arbitration awards rendered against a major U.S. retail pharmacy company and their implications. You can view that interview here.

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.

On a related matter,  CPR Alternatives recently published parts I and II of our article discussing and analyzing SmartSky Networks LLC v. DAG Wireless Ltd., ___ F.4th ___, No. 22-1253, slip op. (4th Cir. Feb. 13, 2024) (available at https://bit.ly/4aviBLS). That case has created a split in the circuits concerning whether a Court having the requisite subject matter jurisdiction to hear a federal question lawsuit on the merits, and thus the requisite subject matter jurisdiction to grant a Section 3 stay of litigation pending arbitration, can be deemed to have subject matter jurisdiction over a post-award application to confirm, vacate, or modify an award—or an application to appoint an arbitrator or enforce a Section 5  arbitral summons—in circumstances where, if the application were made in a standalone, independent action, the Court would not have had subject matter jurisdiction under Badgerow. Prior to Spizzirri, we wrote a number of articles concerning this sometimes-vexing issue. (See here, here, and here.)

Part I of the article is entitled Philip J. Loree Jr., The Fourth Circuit Weighs the Post-Badgerow Jurisdictional Anchor—and Finds It Won’t Set, 42 Alternatives 73 (May 2024), and was published in the May 2024 issue of Alternatives. Part II is entitled Philip J. Loree Jr., More on Independent Actions and the “Jurisdictional Anchor”: Where the Law on Award Enforcement May Be Going, 42 Alternatives 95 (June 2024), which was published in the June 2024 issue of Alternatives. We recently submitted to Alternatives a short, post-script article about how the Spizzirri case, which was not decided until after the other two articles had been submitted, might bear on SmartSky. We expect that article will be published in CPR Alternatives next issue.

Although CPR Alternatives is a subscription-only publication (available to CPR Members only), Russ has said that upon email request, CPR will provide, for fair use purposes only, a copy of each of these articles. You can make your  request by emailing Alternatives@cpradr.org.

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.

 

Status of Arbitration-Law Cases Pending Before SCOTUS this Term

February 12th, 2024 Appellate Practice, Applicability of Federal Arbitration Act, Application to Appoint Arbitrator, Application to Compel Arbitration, Application to Enforce Arbitral Summons, Application to Stay Litigation, Arbitrability, Arbitrability | Clear and Unmistakable Rule, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, CPR Alternatives, CPR Speaks Blog of the CPR Institute, CPR Video Interviews, Delegation Agreements, Exemption from FAA, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 16, FAA Section 3, FAA Transportation Worker Exemption, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 3, Federal Question, Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Practice and Procedure, Pre-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Professor Downes, Richard D. Faulkner, Russ Bleemer, Section 3 Stay of Litigation, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Comments Off on Status of Arbitration-Law Cases Pending Before SCOTUS this Term

Status of Arbitration Cases Pending Before SCOTUS this TermThere are three arbitration-law cases pending before the United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) this October 2023 Term. SCOTUS will presumably decide all three cases by this June, 2024.

 

The Cases: Bissonnette

The first is  Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, No. 23-51 (U.S.), a case that concerns the scope of Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), which exempts from the FAA “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” 9 U.S.C. § 1 (the “Section 1 Exemption”). SCOTUS granted cert. in Bissonnette on September 29, 2023. As set forth in the question presented:

The First and Seventh Circuits have held that [the Section 1 Exemption] applies to any member of a class of workers that is engaged in foreign or interstate commerce in the same way as seamen and railroad employees-that is, any worker ‘actively engaged’ in the interstate transportation of goods. The Second and Eleventh Circuits have added an additional requirement: The worker’s employer must also be in the ‘transportation industry.’

The question presented is: To be exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act, must a class of workers that is actively engaged in interstate transportation also be employed by a company in the transportation industry?

(Bissonnette Question Presented Report)

We summarized the case briefly here and provided a link to an October 24, 2023 video conference in which 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 Professor Angela Downes, University of North Texas-Dallas College of Law Professor of Practice and Assistant Director of Experiential Education; Richard D. Faulkner, arbitrator, mediator, arbitration-law attorney, and former judge; and yours truly, Loree Law Firm principal, Philip J. Loree Jr., about the case, its implications, and how SCOTUS might decide it. You can watch the video-conference interview here.

SCOTUS has set Bissonnette down for oral argument for Tuesday, February 20, 2024 (here). You can listen to SCOTUS arguments on C-Span or on the Court’s website.

The Cases: Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski (a/k/a “Coinbase II”)

The second case  is Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, No. 23-3 (U.S.) (“Coinbase II”), a case that is related to Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, 143 S. Ct. 1915 (2023) (“Coinbase I”), which was decided on June 23, 2023, and discussed here. Coinbase II concerns the application of a delegation provision—an agreement to arbitrate arbitrability disputes—contained in  a contract (“Contract 1”) clearly and unmistakably requires the parties to submit to the arbitrator the question whether the Contract 1 arbitration agreement requires the parties to arbitrate disputes concerning a subsequent contract, Contract 2, even though Contract 2 does not provide for arbitration and requires the parties to submit all disputes concerning Contract 2 exclusively to litigation before the California courts. Is Contract 1’s delegation provision, as applied to the dispute over Contract 2, and in light of the parties’ agreement to litigate, not arbitrate,  disputes concerning Contract 2, clear and unmistakable, as required by SCOTUS precedent? Or, as put differently by the question presented: “Where parties enter into an arbitration agreement with a delegation clause, should an arbitrator or a court decide whether that arbitration agreement is narrowed by a later contract that is silent as to arbitration and delegation?”

SCOTUS granted certiorari in Coinbase II on November 3, 2023, and on November 10, 2023, CPR’s Bleemer interviewed Professor Downes, Faulkner, and Loree about the certiorari grant, what it means, and how the Court might rule on it. You can watch the video-conference interview here. Our blog post about the interview and cert. grant is here.

Oral argument in Coinbase II has been scheduled for February 28, 2024.

Smith v. Spizzirri

The third case is Smith v. Spizzirri, No. 22-1218, which concerns FAA Section 3’s stay-of-litigation-pending-arbitration provision. The Court granted certiorari on January 12, 2024.

FAA Section 3 provides that, once a court determines that a dispute must be arbitrated, the court “shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until” conclusion of the arbitration.  9 U.S.C. § 3 (emphasis added). Most circuits addressing the question have determined that a stay is mandatory if requested. The Ninth Circuit, and a few others, have held that, despite the statute’s mandatory text, courts retain discretion to dismiss an action where all disputes in the action are subject to arbitration.

The Ninth Circuit below held that it was bound to follow prior precedent concerning discretion to dismiss (rather than stay), even though it acknowledged that the statute’s “plain text” suggests otherwise. The Ninth Circuit acknowledged the circuit split and two judges, in an occurring opinion, encouraged “the Supreme Court to take up this question.” (See Question Presented Report.)

The question presented to SCOTUS is “[w]hether Section 3 of the FAA requires district courts to stay a lawsuit pending arbitration, or whether district courts have discretion to dismiss when all claims are subject to arbitration.” (See Question Presented Report.)

Oral argument has not yet been scheduled and merits briefs have not yet been filed.

The case is more noteworthy than may initially meet the eye. It has important implications concerning appealability. If an action is stayed, rather than dismissed, a granted motion to compel arbitration cannot be immediately appealed, see 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(1),(2), (3) & (4); but if a motion to compel is granted, and the action is dismissed, then the right to appeal the denial begins to run immediately. 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(3); Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 85-89 (2000). If a Section 3 stay is mandatory when requested, then there will presumably be fewer cases where courts compel arbitration and dismiss  (rather than stay) the underlying lawsuit, and therefore fewer cases where a grant of a motion to compel or denial of a motion to stay or enjoin arbitration is immediately appealable.

The subject matter jurisdiction implications of the case are equally significant. As we explained in a recent post, under Badgerow, a court’s federal-question subject matter jurisdiction can, for purposes of a motion to compel arbitration, be based on whether the underlying dispute would fall under the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

But subject matter jurisdiction over a petition to confirm or vacate an award resulting from that arbitration cannot, after Badgerow, be based on such “look through” jurisdiction. An independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction must appear from the face of the petition and cannot be based on whether a court would have federal question jurisdiction over the underlying dispute.

As we explained in our Badgerow post, in cases where a Section 3 stay has been requested and granted, there may nevertheless be a so-called “jurisdictional anchor” on which subject matter jurisdiction over subsequent motions to confirm, vacate, or modify awards, to enforce arbitral subpoenas, or appoint arbitrators may be based. Under that jurisdictional anchor theory as long as the court stays the litigation, the court would retain its subject matter jurisdiction, and could exercise it to grant subsequent motions for FAA relief. While there remains a question whether the jurisdictional anchor theory survived Badgerow,  the theory makes sense, even under Badgerow, and is supported by pre-Badgerow case law. (See Badgerow Post.)

If the Court in Spizzirri rules that a motion to stay litigation pending arbitration must be granted if supported and requested, then it will presumably be easier for parties to assert subject matter jurisdiction based on a jurisdictional anchor theory.

Contacting the Author

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

Philip J. Loree Jr. (bio, here) has more than 30 years of experience handling matters arising under the Federal Arbitration Act and in representing a wide variety of clients in arbitration, litigation, and arbitration-related-litigation. He is licensed to practice law in New York and before various federal district courts and circuit courts of appeals.

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.

 

« Older Entries