Archive for the ‘Stay of Litigation’ Category

Newer Entries »

Gateway Keeping: The Third Circuit Joins the Sixth in Holding that Courts get to Decide whether Parties Consented to Class Arbitration

August 28th, 2014 American Arbitration Association, Appellate Practice, Arbitrability, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Arbitration Provider Rules, Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Consent to Class Arbitration, Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings, Drafting Arbitration Agreements, Existence of Arbitration Agreement, Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards, Practice and Procedure, Stay of Litigation, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, United States Supreme Court Comments Off on Gateway Keeping: The Third Circuit Joins the Sixth in Holding that Courts get to Decide whether Parties Consented to Class Arbitration

On June 10, 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court in Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 133 S. Ct. 2064 (2013) considered whether an arbitrator exceeded his powers under Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) Section 10(a)(4) by finding that a fairly run-of-the-mill arbitration agreement authorized class arbitration. Applying the deferential, manifest-disregard-of-the-agreement outcome-review standard authorized by FAA Section 10(a)(4), the Court upheld an arbitrator’s determination that an arbitration agreement authorized class arbitration because the arbitrator had, at least arguably, interpreted the arbitration agreement, albeit in a highly creative and doubtful way. (See Loree Reins. & Arb. L. Forum posts here, here, here & here.)

In a footnote, the Court explained that it “would face a different issue if Oxford had argued below that the availability of class arbitration is a so-called ‘question of arbitrability.’” 133 S. Ct. at 2068 n.2. The Court said that Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 680 (2010), “made clear that this Court has not yet decided” whether class-arbitration-consent presents a question of arbitrability. But “Oxford agreed that the arbitrator should determine whether its contract with Sutter authorized class procedures[,]” and “Oxford submitted that issue to arbitrator not once, but twice—and the second time after Stolt-Nielsen flagged that it might be a question of arbitrability.” 133 S. Ct. at 2068 n.2. (emphasis added)

Had Oxford opted to request the Supreme Court to determine whether class- arbitration consent presented a question of arbitrability, and had the Court determined that it was such a question, then the Court would have determined independently—that is, without deferring to the arbitrator’s decision—whether the parties consented to class arbitration. See BG Group plc v. Republic of Argentina, No. 12-138, slip op. at 6 (U.S. March 5, 2014); First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 543 U.S. 938, 942 (1995). And we doubt that a majority of the Supreme Court would have upheld the Oxford award had it reviewed the class-arbitration-consent determination de novo. See, e.g., Oxford, 133 S. Ct. at 2071 (Alito, J., concurring) (“If we were reviewing the arbitrator’s interpretation of the contract de novo, we would have little trouble concluding that he improperly inferred “[a]n implicit agreement to authorize class-action arbitration … from the fact of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate.”) (quoting Stolt-Nielsen, 559 U.S. at 685).  

Those who have been tracking developments in class and consolidated arbitration since the turn of this century no doubt recall that, after a plurality of the Court determined in Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444, 452-53 (2003), that a class-arbitration-consent-related dispute did not present a question of arbitrability, but merely a procedural question, parties began to submit routinely and unreservedly class-arbitration-consent questions to arbitration.

But after Stolt-Nielsen, and, no doubt with renewed vigor after Oxford, class arbitration opponents began to argue that class-arbitration-consent presented a question of arbitrability for the Court to decide. And U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals are beginning to rule on those challenges.

The first one to do so was the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Crockett, 734 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 2013), where the Court in November 2013 held “that the question whether an arbitration agreement permits classwide arbitration is a gateway matter, which is reserved for judicial determination unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise.” 734 F.2d at 599 (quotation and citation omitted).

The second, and most recent Circuit Court of Appeals to rule on the issue, was the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Opalinski v. Robert Half Int’l Inc., ___ F.3d ___, No. 12-4444, slip op. (3rd Cir. July 30, 2014), which on July 30, 2014 “join[ed] the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in holding that.  .  .  “the availability of” class arbitration “is a substantive gateway question rather than a procedural one[,]” and thus “is a question of arbitrability.” Slip op. at 15, 16-17.  The Court’s decision turned on “the critical differences between individual and class arbitration and the significant consequences of that determination for both [a] whose claims are subject to arbitration[;] and [b] the type of controversy to be arbitrated.” Slip op. at 15 (emphasis added). Where, as in Opalinski, the arbitration agreement did not “mention” class arbitration, the Court “believ[ed] the parties would have expected a court, not an arbitrator, to determine the availability of class arbitration[,]” and that was “especially so given the critical differences between individual and class arbitration and the significant consequences” of the class-arbitration-consent determination as respects “whose claims are subject to arbitration and the type of controversy to be arbitrated.” slip op. at 16-17.

The Third Circuit’s Opalinski decision, like the Sixth Circuit’s in Reed Elsevier, is well reasoned and reaches the conclusion we likewise think is required by the Supreme Court’s long-line of arbitrability jurisprudence, and by its post-Bazzle class-arbitration cases, beginning with Stolt-Nielsen. We suspect that other circuits will, for largely the same reasons, that class-arbitration-consent presents a question of arbitrability.

Let’s have a look at what transpired in Opalinski.  .  .  . Continue Reading »

First Circuit Considers Whether an Arbitration Clause is Mandatory or Optional: PowerShare, Inc. v. Syntel, Inc.

March 5th, 2010 Arbitrability, Stay of Litigation, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 1 Comment »

Not all arbitration agreements are mandatory.  Strange as it may seem, some are optional. 

In PowerShare, Inc. v. Syntel, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, No. 09-1625, slip op. (1st Cir. Mar. 1, 2010) the Court addressed a claim that the following arbitration clause was optional:

 All disputes, controversies and claims directly or indirectly arising out of or in relation to this Agreement or the validity, interpretation, performance, breach, enforceability of the Agreement (collectively referred to as “Dispute”) shall be resolved amicably between Syntel and PowerShare at an operational level in consultation with the top management of both companies.  If any such Dispute cannot be resolved, as stated above, the same shall be settled in accordance with the principles and procedures of the American Arbitration Association and per the decision of an accredited arbitrator acceptable to both parties.  Nothing in this clause shall prejudice Syntel or PowerShare’s right to seek injunctive relief or any other equitable/legal relief or remedies available under law.

A dispute arose under the parties’ contract, and PowerShare commenced an action in the Federal District  Court in Massachusetts.  Syntel moved for a stay under Federal Arbitration Act Section 3.  PowerShare said the arbitration agreement was optional, a Magistrate Judge denied the motion for a stay, and the District Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge’s order.  

The key question before the First Circuit  was whether the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the clause was optional was contrary to law.  The First Circuit reversed, finding that the arbitration clause was mandatory.   (The First Circuit also answered a question about the standard of review under which a district court should review a Magistrate Judge’s decision on a motion to stay litigation under Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act, but we need not dwell on that.)   

The crux of the Magistrate Judge’s order, and PowerShare’s position on appeal,  was the last sentence of the arbitration clause:  “[n]othing in this clause shall prejudice Syntel or PowerShare’s right to seek injunctive relief or any other equitable/legal relief or remedies available under law.”  The Magistrate Judge read that as preserving a party’s right to seek a jury trial in the event of a dispute — notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the arbitration clause —  because a jury trial is a “remedy” “under law.” 

But the First Circuit disagreed.  According to the First Circuit, the parties’ choice-of-law clause required application of the laws of the United States, which the parties agreed brought into play federal common and statutory law.  Under federal common law, “courts must be guided by commonsense rules of contract construction,” and one of those rules is that “an interpretation which gives effect to all the terms of a contract is preferable to one that harps on isolated provisions, heedless of context.”  (citations and quotation omitted) 

The Court reasoned that interpreting the third sentence as making arbitration optional would be to negate the mandatory nature of the second sentence:  

 [PowerShare’s].  .  .  interpretation cannot be reconciled with the unvarnished language of Paragraph 18’s second sentence.  That sentence states explicitly that disputes between the parties “shall” be settled through arbitration.  The word “shall” denotes obligation, not choice; therefore, accepting PowerShare’s interpretation of the third sentence would drain the second sentence of its essential meaning.  Put bluntly, the word “shall” in the second sentence would be rendered nugatory were we to read the arbitration provision as creating nothing more than an option.  That PowerShare’s interpretation of Paragraph 18 would negate the obvious meaning of the second sentence is a powerful argument against accepting that interpretation.  (citations and quotations omitted). 

The Court concluded that the only “plausible interpretation” of the arbitration clause that gave effect to the “plain meaning” of the second sentence  was that “the second sentence mandates arbitration and the third sentence furnishes the arbitrator with broad legal and equitable powers should either party seek special kinds of relief (say, an injunction).”  

The Court based its decision solely on contract interpretation principles without deciding whether the federal presumption of arbitrability applied.  The presumption of arbitrability requires ambiguities concerning the “scope” of an arbitration clause to be resolved in favor of arbitration.  PowerShare argued that the presumption did not apply where, as here, the question was not the scope of an arbitration clause, but whether a mandatory arbitration clause existed in the first place.

Newer Entries »