Lots of folks are writing about the long-term impact of SCOTUS’s recent decision in Epic Systems, but it is also important to note that there has been immediate, short-term impact.

For example, a lead plaintiff agreed to take her sex discrimination case against a law firm  to individual arbitration, abandoning her putative class action, after the Epic decision was released.  A federal judge is ready to dismiss a separate class action against Epic Systems (regarding overtime pay) as a result of the new decision.  And a class action against Chipotle may get sliced and diced up, with about 30% of employees being sent to individual arbitration, while 70% of the class can proceed in court (because they started working for the chain before it instituted the arbitration program). There must be dozens (hundreds?) of similar employment class actions around the country.

Speaking of the trickle down effects of SCOTUS’s arbitration cases, last year’s Kindred decision is certainly a relevant headwater for the Supreme Court of West Virginia’s recent opinion upholding the arbitration agreement in nursing home admission documents.  Although West Virginia used to be reliably anti-arbitration, its recent decisions are pro-arbitration.  So, it’s not too surprising that in AMFM LLC v. Shanklin, 2018 WL 2467770 (W. Va. May 30, 2018), that court reversed a trial court’s ruling that the arbitration agreement signed by the resident’s daughter was not enforceable.  Careful not to interpret its statutes and common law regarding power of attorney in a way that stands as an obstacle to the FAA, West Virginia’s high court found that the daughter’s role as understudy in the POA document (fine, it says “successor” or “alternate”) was sufficient to bind her mother to the arbitration agreement.  The position drew a spirited dissent from one lone justice.

 

I have been making my way through the rest of the May arbitration cases (the photo shows how high my stack got), and one thing that stands out is this: I was right.  Delegation clauses remain a hot topic in arbitration law.

Three recent cases demonstrate the power of having a delegation clause in an arbitration agreement.

The Fifth Circuit enforced a delegation clause in Edwards v. DoorDash, 2018 WL 1954090 (5th Cir. Apr. 25, 2018), a case involving a putative FLSA class action brought by “Dashers.”  Not to be confused with reindeers who pull Santa’s sleigh, these Dashers  deliver restaurant food to people’s homes.  And they all signed an Independent Contractor Agreement with an arbitration agreement.  That agreement called for AAA rules and waived class and collective actions.  In response to the filing of the class action, DoorDash successfully moved to compel individual arbitration. On appeal, the class representative argued the arbitration agreement was unconscionable.  But once the Fifth Circuit was satisfied that the independent contractor agreement was validly formed, it found the incorporation of AAA rules was a valid delegation clause that the plaintiffs had failed to challenge.  The case was sent to arbitration.

In another Fifth Circuit case, Arnold v. HomeAway, Inc., 2018 WL 2222661 (5th Cir. May 15, 2018), incorporation of AAA rules also served as the parties’ delegation clause.  In that case, consumers filed putative class action complaints against a company that facilitates short-term vacation rentals.  HomeAway argued that its 2016 terms and conditions applied, which contained an arbitration clause providing that arbitration would be governed by AAA rules and that awards would be “on an individual basis.”  The consumers argued that the 2015 terms and conditions applied, which lacked an arbitration agreement (and that any subsequent modification was invalid).  The district court denied the motion to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement illusory.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit faulted the district court for ignoring the delegation clause in the terms and conditions.  It found the incorporation of AAA rules was a clear and unmistakable delegation of questions relating to the validity of the arbitration agreement to an arbitrator.  Because the plaintiffs’ challenge to the arbitration agreement was not specific to the delegation clause, arbitration must be compelled.

Not far away, in the Supreme Court of Alabama, another delegation clause was enforced.  Eickhoff Corp. v. Warrior Met Coal, LLC, 2018 WL 2075985 (Alabama May 4, 2018), did not involve a putative class action, but something just as sexy: five agreements between the parties, only two of which had arbitration clauses (both calling for AAA rules).  When one party filed in court, the other moved to compel arbitration.  The party opposing arbitration claimed that its court claims were based on the three contracts without arbitration clauses and the trial court agreed.  The Supreme Court reversed, finding that the incorporation of AAA Rules was an enforceable delegation clause, delegating questions of scope to an arbitrator, and it should have resulted in an order compelling arbitration.

SCOTUS finally delivered its decision today in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, the consolidated case that addresses whether employers can require employees to give up their right to class or consolidated litigation as part of an arbitration agreement.  In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Gorsuch, the Court found that class action waivers are enforceable under the FAA, and nothing in the labor laws preclude that conclusion.

As usual, how the Court frames the question gives away its answer.  Justice Gorsuch began the majority opinion by asking: “Should employees and employers be allowed to agree that any disputes between them will be resolved through one-on-one arbitration?”* In contrast, Justice Ginsburg’s dissent frames the issue as “Does the [FAA] permit employers to insist that their employees, whenever seeking redress for commonly experienced wage loss, go it alone, never mind the right secured to employees by the National Labor Relations Act . . . ‘to engage in . . . concerted activities’ for their ‘mutual aid or protection'”?

The majority opinion started by painting the NLRB’s opposition to class action waivers as a sudden shift after 77 years of peaceful coexistence with the FAA.  It then finds that the NLRA cannot be applied via the savings clause of Section 2 of the FAA because it interferes with one of arbitration’s fundamental attributes — individual resolution — and therefore is not the type of defense that applies to any contract. (It cites Concepcion for the proposition that individual resolution is fundamental to arbitration.)

After finding nothing in the FAA itself that would prevent enforcement of the class action waivers at issue, the majority opinion looks to see if the NLRA clearly and manifestly indicates that Congress intended to override the FAA.  It finds no statutory or contextual evidence of that clear intent.  It also made short work of the employees’ argument for Chevron deference to the NLRB.  [One of the best lines from the opinion is in that section.  Noting that Chevron was based, in part, on the idea that policy choices should be left to the executive branch which voters can hold accountable, the majority writes: “whatever argument might be mustered for deferring to the Executive on grounds of political accountability, surely it becomes a garble when the Executive speaks from both sides of its mouth, articulating no single position on which it might be held accountable.”]

Interestingly, the majority decision acknowledges that there is a vigorous policy debate over the merits of class action waivers in arbitration.  At multiple points during the opinion Justice Gorsuch bows to the possibility that the FAA could be flawed: “You might wonder if the balance Congress struck in 1925 between arbitration and litigation should be revisited in light of more contemporary developments.”  And later “This Court is not free to substitute its preferred economic policies for those chosen by the people’s representatives.”  But each time he returns to the idea that the Court is bound by the law to rigidly enforce arbitration agreements.  In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg agrees that Congress is now the right branch of government to act.  The dissent states: “Congressional correction of the Court’s elevation of the FAA over workers’ rights to act in concert is urgently in order.”

The dissent would hold that Section 7 of the NLRA does guarantee the right to pursue collective litigation and trumps the FAA.  The dissent reviews the text and legislative history of the NLRA to support its conclusion and addresses the majority’s arguments.  What I found most interesting in the dissent, however, was its review of the legislative history behind Section 1 of the FAA.  Apparently, organized labor was concerned about the FAA’s impact, and Herbert Hoover amended the legislation to specifically exclude workers’ contracts.  Congress passed the amended version and labor withdrew its opposition.  [Justice Ginsburg’s research on that topic may come in handy next term when the Court addresses the New Prime case.]

This is the result that everyone expected based on oral argument and the current politics of the court.  But still, when I read the “Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court,” I can’t help feeling like it should say “Justice Gorsuch delivered on President Trump’s promises of a conservative court.”  Would it have been better to just let the new appointments to the NLRB reverse the Board’s course of action, much like the reversals of other agencies, and save the Court from this particular insertion into politics?

*  (Do you hear that growly “one on one” from this song when you read that?   Maybe it’s just me.)

 

The Supreme Court of Mississippi issued a new opinion that sheds light on a topic that doesn’t come up often: when can an arbitration award be modified due to miscalculation?  D.W. Caldwell, Inc. v. W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Co., 2018 WL 2146355 (Miss. May 10, 2018).

The context for the case was a construction dispute between a general contractor and a roofing subcontractor.  The arbitrator awarded damages to the subcontractor, and the general contractor filed a motion to the arbitrator to have the award modified.  The arbitrator denied the motion.

The contractor them made a motion in court to modify the award.  After taking testimony and exhibits in an evidentiary hearing, the court granted the motion to modify the award, reducing the subcontractor’s damages by over $100,000.  The contractor argued that the arbitrator “miscalculated” in two ways: first, by declaring that the amount of retainage was not ripe for decision; and second by double-counting some labor costs.

On appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the trial court decision and instructed that the original award be confirmed.  In doing so, it established some guidelines for handling these types of motions in the future.  (It applied Mississippi statutes, finding that while the FAA would otherwise govern, the parties contracted for application of the state arbitration statutes.  But, it looked to federal precedent to inform its analysis.)  Importantly, it held that an evident miscalculation “must be apparent from nothing more than the four corners of the award and the contents of the arbitration record.”  Therefore, the district court erred by taking new evidence during the appeal.  In addition, the court found that the face of the award (and the arbitration record) did not show any mathematical error, and therefore there was “insufficient proof of an evident miscalculation.”

This case confirms that not only are the bases for vacatur under Section 10 of the FAA (and its state counterparts) interpreted very narrowly, but the bases for modification in Section 11 are just as hard to prove, if not more so.

p.s. Yikes!  It has been more than two weeks since my last post.  What have I been up to?  Well, preparing to present here  and  here and then updating the Arbitration chapter of this book.  Such a fun time of year!  Let me know if you’ll be at those events so we can connect.

 

Today the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in another case involving the Federal Arbitration Act.  The case, Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, comes from the Ninth Circuit and raises a variation of the question from Sutter: how clear does an arbitration agreement need to be to show the parties authorized class arbitration?

My initial summary of the Ninth Circuit opinion is here.  It didn’t even merit an entire post of its own, but shared time with another circuit court opinion.  In my view, the issue of class arbitration has largely been hammered out.  SCOTUS ruled in Stolt-Nielsen that class arbitration is only allowed if the parties’ arbitration agreement authorizes it.  More recently, courts have generally concluded that courts, not arbitrators, should decide whether the parties’ arbitration agreement allows for class arbitration.  Finally, state law governs the question of how to interpret whether the parties’ arbitration agreement authorizes class arbitration.  Yet, now we will have a new decision on whether an interpretation of state law (interpreting ambiguity against a drafter to find class arbitration is authorized) should be preempted by the federal policy favoring arbitration (and particularly, favoring non-class arbitration).

In fact, the other two arbitration cases on SCOTUS’s docket also relate to class actions.  The NLRB case (whether forcing employees to waive their right to class actions in arbitration agreements is a violation of labor statutes) is still under consideration (it was argued last October).  And another upcoming case, New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira, stems from a putative class action brought by independent contractors, even though the narrow issue before SCOTUS is whether an arbitrator or court should determine the applicability of the FAA.

If any Supreme Court clerk or justice had called me and asked “what are some of the really hot arbitration questions that this Court should resolve in order to ensure consistent decision-making around the country?,” class arbitration would not have been on my list.  I read every arbitration opinion that issues from the federal circuit courts and state high courts, and the issues I see courts struggling with most often include delegation clauses and issues relating to non-signatories.  Maybe I am not giving enough credit to the few class action opinions that come out (despite the fact that they impact many people), or alternatively maybe the Court’s emphasis on class arbitration highlights a political aspect of the cert process, or a particular interest of a majority of justices, or just the persuasiveness of this team.

 

 

One question I get frequently is whether a party can protect the status quo by seeking a court injunction, even if there is an arbitration agreement in place.  Usually, I point them back to this post from 2011 (with the caveat that the AAA rules now authorize arbitrators to grant emergency relief, without any need for referencing “optional rules”).  But, a new case from the First Circuit — with retired Justice Souter on the panel — confirms that injunctions remain possible, and not just for the limited purpose of maintaining the status quo.

In Axia Netmedia Corp. v. Mass. Technology Park Corp., 2018 WL 1940220 (1st Cir. April 25, 2018), the dispute related to one defendant’s promise to operate a new broadband network for a public entity at its own cost, and another defendant’s promise to guarantee the performance of the first defendant.  Let’s call the first defendant the Operator, and the second the Guarantor.  The whole thing did not go as smoothly as planned, and within three years the parties were claiming multiple breaches of contract.  Eventually, the public entity demanded arbitration.  The Guarantor immediately filed a federal suit, seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no responsibility to continue guaranteeing payments or performance by the Operator during the arbitration.  In response, the public entity sought an injunction requiring Guarantor to do exactly those things (guarantee the payments and performance during the arbitration).  The district court granted the injunction to the public entity.

On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed.  It focused on language within the dispute resolution provision of the Operator’s contract, which provided that it had to “continue performing [its] respective obligations…while the dispute is being resolved” and on the language in the Guarantor’s contract, which provided the Guarantor had to “perform all such obligations of” the Operator (and incorporated the Operator’s contract).  Because of that incorporation, the court found the Guarantor agreed “to perform [its] obligations under that contract pending resolution of any dispute” and therefore the district court did not err in finding the public entity was likely to succeed in showing the Guarantor had a continuing obligation to perform.

This case is helpful for drafters of arbitration clauses, because it shows it is worth including language saying that parties have to continue performing during the ADR process.  And also because it offers support for those limited instances where a party must seeking a court injunction at the beginning of an arbitration.

 

The last post focused on three recent state appellate court decisions that refused to compel arbitration or vacated an award, and this follow-up post focuses on seven recent cases that are friendly to arbitration.

My favorite is from Montana.  Although none of its arbitration decisions have been addressed by SCOTUS, Montana decided to preempt any federal preemption issues by adjusting its stance on unconscionability.  (It waited five years after the 9th Circuit put it on notice, though.)  Lenz v. FSC Sec. Corp., 2018 WL 1603927 (Mont. April 3, 2018), involves claims by investors against investment advisors over “substantial losses.”  The defendants moved to compel arbitration and the district court granted the motion.  On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed.  In its decision, it took the opportunity to clarify that the previous test it had used to determine unconscionability was improper, because it mixed unconscionability analysis with the reasonable expectations doctrine from the insurance context.  (Read this mea culpa: “We have continued to perpetuate confusion by inaccurately referencing [bad tests for unconscionability] …Even more problematic in particular regard to arbitration agreements, we have failed to recognize the manifest incompatibility of the insurance-specific reasonable expectations doctrine as a generally applicable contract principle.”)  I read that as “we do not want to be reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

The others can be reviewed more quickly:

  • Substantive unconscionability cannot be established by showing only that the arbitration agreement is broad in scope.  SCI Alabama Funeral Servs. v. Hinton, 2018 WL 1559795 (Ala. March 30, 2018) [I’m a bit surprised that needed clarifying];
  • The Federal Arbitration Act applies to arbitration agreements within a common interest community’s covenants (and preempts conflicting state law).  In U.S. Home Corp. v. The Michael Ballesteros Trust, 2018 WL 1755536 (Nev. April 12, 2018), 12 homeowners argued that the FAA did not apply to the arbitration agreement in their covenants because land is traditionally a local concern.  The court found that the covenants’ larger purpose was to facilitate the creation of a community of multiple homes, and multiple out-of-state business contributed to construction of the homes.  Therefore, the FAA controlled and preempted Nevada rules requiring the same procedures as in court and requiring arbitration agreements to be more conspicuous than other text in a contract;
  • Non-signatories may compel arbitration if the plaintiff’s claims are based on facts that are “intertwined” with arbitrable claims.  Melendez v. Horning, 2018 WL 1191150 (N.D. March 8, 2018) (reversing district court order denying motion to compel arbitration);
  • Scope of arbitration agreement broad enough to encompass claims against related entity.  Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations v. Adams, 2018 WL 1355966 (Ala. March 16, 2018), concluded that where the employee’s arbitration agreement was with the “Company,” which was defined to include affiliate and related companies, the employee’s suit against a related company was arbitrable;
  • Arbitrator did not manifestly disregard contractual language in construction contract.  In ABC Building Corp. v. Ropolo Family, 2018 WL 1309761 (R.I. Mar. 14, 2018), the owner tried to vacate an arbitration award in favor of the general contractor.  It relied on contract language requiring submission of payroll records with payment applications in order to argue that the contractor could not receive additional compensation for labor without having provided that contemporaneous documentation.  However, the arbitrator considered that provision of the contract in his decision-making (and the owner had never complained), so vacatur was inappropriate (one judge dissented);
  • Delegation clause must be enforced if not specifically challenged.  Family Dollar Stores of W. Va. v. Tolliver, 2018 WL 1074947 (Feb. 27, 2018).  I know, it’s a stretch to call this one a spring decision.  But, it’s snowing in Minnesota on April 14th, so my seasons are totally confused.  That’s why we call it “Minnesnowta.”

 

The focus today is recent state appellate court decisions on arbitration. Because there are an awful lot of them, I am going to divide them roughly into those that are pro arbitration, and those that are hostile to arbitration.  This post focuses on the three relatively hostile cases (with the friendly cases coming in a sequel), on issues of scope, delegation clause, and vacatur.

In Keyes v. Dollar General Corp., 2018 WL 1755266 (Miss. April 12, 2018),  the Mississippi Supreme Court wrestled with whether claims of “malicious prosecution” are within the scope of an arbitration agreement.  Just as it did a few months ago, the court concluded those claims are not within the scope of the arbitration agreement.  Even though in Keyes, the employee’s arbitration agreement provided for arbitration of all disputes “arising out of your employment…or termination of employment” and the employee was accused of stealing a gift card, which led to a criminal complaint.  The court noted that there was no evidence the employee “contemplated” this situation and that the employer could have specifically included claims of malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, etc. in the arbitration agreement.  [Can you imagine if we all had to list every possible claim for it to be covered by an arbitration agreement?  So.  Many.  Pages.]  On a similar issue, Texas reached the opposite result.

In Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co., Inc., 299 Neb. 545 (April 6, 2018), the Nebraska Supreme Court refused to enforce the delegation clause in the parties’ agreement.  [Yes, *that* Citizens of Humanity, of fancy jean fame.]  Just as in a similar 4th Circuit case, the party wanting to avoid arbitration alleged an anti-arbitration insurance statute precluded enforcement of the arbitration agreement (under the dreaded McCarran-Ferguson doctrine, which for a long time I refused to even acknowledge on this blog for fear of getting sucked into the morass).  The party seeking to arbitrate argued that the parties’ delegation clause assigned the issue of the anti-arbitration statute to the arbitrator, and that there had been no specific challenge to the delegation clause as required by Rent-A-Center. The Nebraska Supreme Court found the challenge was sufficiently specific in this case because the amended complaint mentioned the anti-arbitration statute and sought a declaration that the arbitration agreement was invalid, and because the challenger said during its hearing that its challenge included the delegation of arbitrability.  [Well, if you uttered the magic words at oral argument, then I guess that’s good enough…]  The court went on to find the delegation clause invalid and remanded the remaining arbitrability issues to the district court.

[The Third Circuit also found that a plaintiff had asserted a sufficiently specific challenge to a delegation clause in MacDonald v. Cashcall, Inc., 2018 WL 1056942 (Feb. 27, 2018).  But there, the complaint alleged that “any provision requirement that the enforceability of the arbitration procedure must be decided through arbitration is [] illusory and unenforceable.”  And the plaintiff’s brief at least stated that the delegation clause had the same defect as the arbitration provision.]

Last but not least, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued a decision vacating an arbitration award for violating public policy. In City of Richfield v. Law Enforcement Labor Servs., Inc., 2018 WL 1701916 (Minn. Ct. App. April 9, 2018), the city terminated a police officer following his improper use of force in a traffic stop and failure to self-report that force.  The officer challenged his discharge in arbitration, and the arbitrator found the use of force was not excessive and that the failure to report it was not malicious, and ordered the city to reinstate him.  The city appealed the award.  The district court refused to vacate the award, but the appellate court found vacatur appropriate under the public-policy exception.  The court looked to the officer’s previous failures to report his use of force and found “the interest of the public must be given precedence over the arbitration award.”  The court noted its decision is rare and unusual, but that it did “not take this action lightly.”

A new Seventh Circuit case answers the age-old question: if a fourteen-year-old swipes her mom’s credit card to complete a smoothie purchase at the mall, is she bound to the credit card agreement?

The case, A.D. v. Credit One Bank, N.A., __ F.3d __, 2018 WL 1414907 (Mar. 22. 2018), addressed whether the lead plaintiff in a putative TCPA class action was bound to an arbitration agreement.  The lead plaintiff was a teenager when the case was filed, and she alleged that the defendant bank called her cell phone multiple times to collect on her mother’s credit card debt.  (A practice which is precluded by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).)  During the course of discovery, the defendant bank realized that it had linked the teenager’s cell phone number to the mother’s credit card account when the mother used the teen’s cell phone to call the defendant.   It also discovered that the teenager had completed a few smoothie purchases at the mall using her mother’s credit card.  The defendant bank then made a motion to compel arbitration  (and to deny class certification) based on the arbitration agreement in the mother’s cardholder agreement.  The district court granted the motion, but the Seventh Circuit reversed.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit tried to clear up any ambiguity in its previous treatment of cases regarding non-signatories.  It established two analytical steps needed to resolve the arbitrability question: whether the daughter is directly bound by the arbitration agreement; and if not, whether any of the arguments for binding non-signatories apply.

With respect to whether the daughter was bound by the plain language of the arbitration agreement, the Court had no trouble concluding she was not.   The arbitration agreement specifically applied to claims made by authorized users of the account.  The district court had relied on one sentence in the paragraph defining “Authorized Users” of the card: “If you allow someone to use your Account, that person will be an Authorized User.”  That, plus the fact that the mother had ordered smoothies, but then sent her daughter up to the counter to swipe the credit card when the smoothies were ready, led the district court to conclude the daughter was an “authorized user” bound by the cardholder agreement.  The appellate court, however, noted that the full definition of Authorized User required multiple steps for someone to qualify, none of which had been completed for the teenage plaintiff.  Furthermore, the cardholder agreement limited authorized users to people over fifteen, and the relevant state law also did not allow fourteen-year-olds to enter into binding contracts.    Therefore, the Seventh Circuit found the “terms of the cardholder agreement do not bind” the teenage plaintiff.

With respect to the second analytical step, the Court found the principles of equitable estoppel (which can bind non-signatories to arbitration agreement) did not bind the daughter to the cardholder agreement.  Critically, equitable estoppel requires the bank to prove that the teenage daughter received a “direct benefit” from the cardholder agreement.  In this case, the bank’s whole argument hinged on the smoothie.  [I wonder if there was testimony about how much it cost, and how delicious it was!  Did it have vitamin boosters?!]  And the Court was not impressed.  It reasoned:

“any ‘benefit’ that [daughter] received with respect to the credit card was limited to following her mother’s directions to pick up the smoothies that her mother had ordered previously. . . Her mother, [] benefited from the agreement, which allowed her, not [the daughter] to buy the smoothies.”

The Court also concluded that the class action claims did not seek benefits under the cardholder agreement, which would have been a separate basis for estoppel.

As a result, the Seventh Circuit reversed the decision to grant the motion to compel arbitration and directed the district court to reconsider its denial of the class certification as well.

 

Two different panels of the Second Circuit issued opinions about class arbitration on the same day last week.  One creates a circuit split over how specific parties must be to delegate the availability of class arbitration to arbitrators, and the second addresses when bankruptcy law can preempt the federal arbitration act.

In Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC v. Sappington, 2018 WL 1177230 (2d Cir. March 7, 2018), a putative class of former Wells Fargo employees brought suit for unpaid overtime (FLSA).  Wells Fargo moved to compel “bilateral” (individual) arbitration.  The district court denied the motion, finding that the arbitrator was authorized to decide whether class arbitration was available.   The Second Circuit affirmed.

As you may recall from this blog, at least four federal circuit courts have found that whether class arbitration is available is a gateway issue of arbitrability, meaning that it is presumptively for the courts to determine.  (The 8th, 6th, 4th, and 3d.)  And, while parties can delegate gateway issues to the arbitrator if they do so clearly and unmistakably, at least three of those circuits have held that a higher standard applies to the class arbitration issue.  (For example, the Eighth Circuit found that incorporating AAA rules was not sufficient to delegate class arbitrability, while it is sufficient to delegate other gateway issues.)

In the Wells Fargo matter, the Second Circuit “assume[d] without deciding” that the availability of class arbitration is a gateway question.  (Wimps.  Just decide.)  It then considered whether the delegation of that issue to an arbitrator was clear and unmistakable under Missouri law.  One set of plaintiffs had an agreement stating that “any controversy relating to your duty to arbitrate hereunder, or to the validity or enforceability of this arbitration clause, or to any defense to arbitration, shall also be arbitrated.”    The court found that was clear and unmistakable delegation of the class arbitration issue to an arbitrator.

More surprisingly, the court found that a second set of plaintiffs had also clearly and unmistakable delegated class arbitration to an arbitrator, even though their agreement only agreed to arbitrate “any dispute” and adopted either FINRA rules or alternatively 1993 Securities Arbitration Rules of the AAA.  In its analysis, the court noted that because some types of disputes were excluded from arbitration (unemployment), but class arbitration was not excluded, Missouri law would consider it included.  And the court found that more recent iterations of the AAA rules applied, which allow an arbitrator to determine whether a class can proceed.  This decision creates a circuit split on the issue of whether class arbitration is special enough to deserve its own rules for delegation.

As if creating a circuit split on class arbitrability wasn’t exciting enough, the Second Circuit also allowed another putative class action to go forward, despite an arbitration clause.  In In re Anderson, 2018 WL 1177227 (2d Cir. March 7, 2018), Mr. Anderson went through Chapter 7 bankruptcy and his debts were released.  One of those debts was to his credit card company.  However, Mr. Anderson alleged that the credit card company refused to update his credit reports after the bankruptcy.  So, he filed a putative class action.  The credit card moved to compel arbitration under the cardholder agreement, but the bankruptcy court found it was non-arbitrable because it “was a core bankruptcy proceeding that went to the heart of the ‘fresh start’ guaranteed to debtors.”  On appeal, the Second Circuit agreed.