The Seventh Circuit issued an opinion last week that sounded like it would be a big deal.  The case, Herrington v. Waterstone Mortgage Corp., 2018 WL 5116905 (7th Cir. Oct. 22, 2018), dealt with the fallout from SCOTUS’s Epic Systems, and addressed a class arbitrability issue of first impression, which meant it could have been epic indeed.  But instead, the decision is a fizzle that punts all the truly exciting issues back to the district court.

Herrington began in court as a collective action for minimum wages and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The named plaintiff had an arbitration clause which included this statement “Such arbitration may not be joined with or join or include any claims by any persons not party to this Agreement.”  So, the defendant moved to compel individual arbitration.  But, based on the 7th Circuit’s precedent finding that class waivers in employment agreements violated federal labor laws (the NRLA), the court sent the parties to arbitration with an order instructing the arbitrator to allow the plaintiff “to join other employees to her case.”

In arbitration, the parties continued to fight over what type of suit could proceed.  The arbitrator concluded that the arbitration agreement evinced the parties’ intent to allow class arbitration, because it incorporated AAA employment rules, which the arbitrator interpreted to also include the supplementary rules for class arbitration.   In the end, however, the group proceeded as a collective arbitration with 175 members, and the arbitrator awarded them $10 million.

While the issue was on appeal, SCOTUS overruled the 7th Circuit’s precedent (in Epic Systems), which upended this entire proceeding.  On its face, it seemed as if the initial decision not to enforce the arbitration clause precluding joinder should be un-done, which would vacate the entire award.  However, the plaintiffs argued that despite the language precluding joinder, the arbitration clause still contained other language that authorized the collective arbitration.  At that, the 7th Circuit pivoted and framed the question as: who decides whether the arbitration clause allows collective arbitration?  The court or the arbitrator?

Noting it was “an open question in our circuit,” the 7th Circuit agreed with “every federal court of appeals to reach the question” that the “availability of class arbitration is a question of arbitrability” and therefore presumptively for courts to decide.  But, the 7th Circuit did not address the next logical question that must be answered to resolve the case: does or does not the parties’ choice of AAA rules delegate even the availability of class arbitration to an arbitrator?  Because that is not only an open question in the 7th Circuit, but one on which the other federal circuits are split.

That issue is important because if the parties validly delegated that question to the arbitrator, then the arbitrator’s decision finding the parties’ arbitration clause allowed collective action is entitled to deference.  At that point, isn’t it just like Sutter?  The arbitrator allowed the class action, and the courts have to live with that construction, “good, bad or ugly”?

Well, all those issues will have to be worked out by the district court.  The 7th Circuit found “the district court should conduct the threshold inquiry regarding class or collective arbitrability to determine whether [plaintiff’s] agreement with [defendant] authorized the kind of arbitration that took place.”

Happy Halloween!  (Or, by the time most of you read this, Day of the Dead.  Can you believe my husband carved this cool pumpkin?)

This post is aimed at drafters of arbitration clauses. Because if you don’t insert an administrator for your arbitration, and don’t anticipate that the administrator may just stop providing services, your arbitration clause is dead in the water. At least, that’s the holding of two new state court cases.

In A-1 Premium Acceptance, Inc. v. Hunter, 2018 WL 4998256 (Mo. Oct. 16, 2018), the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the lower court’s decision to deny a defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. The reason was that the arbitration agreement within the 2006 loan documents provided “any claim or dispute related to this agreement…shall be resolved by binding arbitration by the National Arbitration Forum [NAF], under the Code of Procedure then in effect.” As regular readers are aware, the NAF stopped administering consumer arbitration in 2009. Although many courts have enforced arbitration agreements, despite their inclusion of NAF, Missouri did not. It found that the language of this clause showed that the parties intended to arbitrate before the NAF and only the NAF. Therefore, the court refused to use Section 5 of the FAA to appoint a replacement administrator.

In Flanzman v. Jenny Craig, Inc., Docket No. A-2580-17T1 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Oct. 17, 2018), New Jersey’s appellate division was faced with a slightly different problem: the parties’ arbitration clause did not provide what rules would govern the arbitration nor which entity would administer it.  As a result, the court found the arbitration clause was never formed, because the employee could not give informed assent. It reasoned:

Selecting an arbitral institution informs the parties, at a minimum, about that institution’s arbitration rules and procedures.  Without knowing this basic information, parties to an arbitration agreement will be unfamiliar with the rights that replaced judicial adjudication.  That is, the parties will not reach a “meeting of the minds.”

While clarifying that no magic words were required, the New Jersey court noted that if the parties don’t identify an “arbitral institution (such as AAA or JAMS)” they should at least identify the process for selecting a forum.  Otherwise, arbitration agreements will not be enforced under New Jersey law. (Unlike Missouri, the New Jersey court did not discuss Section 5 of the FAA and the statutory authority for courts to appoint arbitrators.)

Every time I think the spate of state supreme court opinions about nursing home arbitration surely must be over, another one comes out to prove me wrong.  Last week, it was one from Alabama, finding an arbitration agreement was never formed, because the resident lacked capacity and the daughter who signed on his behalf lacked power of attorney.

In Stephan v. Millennium Nursing & Rehab Ctr., 2018 WL 4846501 (Ala. Oct. 5, 2018), the decedent’s estate sued the nursing home for wrongful death.  The nursing home moved to compel arbitration.  The trial court granted the motion to compel, and the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed.

The decedent’s daughter had signed the admission paperwork in a space provided for “signature of family member responsible for patient.”  She did not have power of attorney or any other legal authority to contract in his name.  (She also happened to be personal representative of his estate.)  In reviewing the record, the court found decedent was incapable of entering into a contract on the date of the admission documents due to his dementia.  In addition, the decedent could not have understood the effect of allowing his daughter to agree to arbitrate, so she lacked apparent authority.  Furthermore, the daughter was not personally bound to the arbitration clause, and thereby precluded from suing as personal representative, because she signed in her capacity as her father’s relative, not in her own capacity.   Therefore, the arbitration agreement never existed and could not be enforced.

One justice dissented, arguing that the daughter essentially fraudulently induced the nursing home to contract.

Here’s the key question: Is this ruling preempted by the FAA, or does it otherwise run afoul of Kindred?  I don’t think so.  Kindred involved an actual power of attorney document.  This case seems to rest on principles that most states would agree with, and would apply generally to contracts of other types.  SCOTUS is also unlikely to be interested in this case since Alabama has generally been following federal precepts about arbitration.

I would understand if not every state supreme court got the memo from last year’s SCOTUS decision on FAA preemption, Kindred, which reminded state courts that the FAA prevents state courts from imposing additional requirements on arbitration agreements that are not required for other types of contracts.  But Kentucky definitely got the memo.  The memo was addressed to Kentucky. Yet, last week the Supreme Court of Kentucky released a new decision that continues to convey hostility to arbitration and SCOTUS’s decisions interpreting the FAA.

The legal issue in Northern Ky. Area Development District v. Snyder, 2018 WL 4628143 (Ky. Sept. 27, 2018) is straightforward: Does the FAA preempt a Kentucky statute that prohibits employers from conditioning employment on an employee’s agreement to arbitrate claims.  The statute prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to “waive, arbitrate, or otherwise diminish any existing or future claim, right, or benefit to which the employee or person seeking employment would otherwise be entitled.”  In this case, the plaintiff was required to sign an arbitration agreement in order to work for the governmental entity.  When she sued over her termination, the employer moved to compel arbitration.

The trial court refused to compel arbitration.  Then the court of appeals affirmed, finding that the employer never had authority to enter into the arbitration in the first place (due to the statute), so the arbitration agreement did not technically exist.  (Too cute by half.  Plus, Justice Kagan specifically said that formation issues could also be preempted.)

The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed.  It also concluded that the employer, a state agency, was covered by the anti-arbitration statute.  And therefore, when it conditioned employment on an agreement to arbitrate, in violation of the statute, its action was “ultra vires,” and the resulting arbitration agreement was void.  (See parenthetical above.)

The court went on to find the anti-arbitration statute at issue was not preempted by the FAA.  The decision states with an apparently straight face that the statute “does not actually attack, single out, or specifically discriminate against arbitration agreements” and did not “evidenc[e] hostility to arbitration”.  The statute “simply prevents [the employer] from conditioning employment” on the arbitration agreement. Furthermore, it notes that the statute does not just preclude arbitration agreements, but also any agreement that waives or limits an employee’s rights.

BUT HERE’S THE PROBLEM.  Kentucky’s reasoning only makes sense if we agree that arbitration is a limitation or a diminishment of the employee’s rights.  If, instead, you assume that arbitration is simply an alternative forum for resolving the employee’s full set of rights, the logic falls apart.  But, will SCOTUS really want to hear another Kentucky decision?  Kentucky is betting that it won’t.  Maybe this should not surprise anyone; Kentucky did not exactly bend to SCOTUS’s will when Kindred was remanded.  And btw, the nursing home is seeking certiorari from the remand decision, and SCOTUS just relisted it, meaning it still has a chance. (For good measure, Kentucky’s high court issued a decision compelling arbitration on the same day, overruling an objection that the arbitration clause was not fully mutual.  Grimes v. GHSW Enterprises, 2018 WL 4628160 (Ky. Sept. 27, 2018).)

————————–

Speaking of SCOTUS, Monday it denied cert in at least four arbitration cases.  Two were companion cases (from Cal. and Neb.) that sought guidance on what types of challenges can invalidate a delegation clause.  (My blog post here, SCOTUSblog here and here.)  Another presented issues regarding binding non-signatories to arbitration through equitable estoppel. The fourth involved a question of whether an employer waived its right to arbitration (Cash Biz).  (My post here, filings here.)

And – this morning, SCOTUS hears arguments in New Prime, addressing the exemption in FAA Section One.

[Thanks to @PerryCooper for alerting me to a few of these cert denials.]

Usually the plaintiffs in a class action want to stay out of arbitration, but in the recent case of JPAY v. Kobel, 2018 WL 4472207 (11th Cir. Sept. 19, 2018), it was the class representatives who were fighting for arbitration.  In particular, they wanted the arbitrator to decide whether they could have a class action.  And they won.

In a case that reads as if it is charting significant new ground, even though the court reached almost the same conclusion just a few weeks ago, the Eleventh Circuit clarified a few holdings.  First, the availability of class arbitration is a “gateway issue” that is presumptively for courts to decide.  [To be fair, in the earlier decision, it had assumed that result without actually reaching that holding.]  Second, the availability of class arbitration can be delegated to arbitrators just as easily as other gateway questions.  In other words, the 11th Circuit reaffirmed its opposition to the rule adopted by three other circuits: that the question of class arbitrability takes special delegation language, and incorporating JAMS or AAA rules is not enough.

In this case, the court found that the parties had delegated the question of whether the action could proceed on a class basis in arbitration in two independent ways.  First, they had agreed to arbitrate under AAA rules (the agreement mentions both consumer and commercial rules).  Because the AAA rules authorize arbitrators to determine their own jurisdiction, the 11th Circuit found this was sufficient to authorize the arbitrator to decide whether a class action was available under the language of the parties’ arbitration agreement.  It disagreed that the parties needed to have adopted or referenced the AAA Supplementary Rules for Class Arbitrations.

Second, the parties had included this language in the arbitration clause: “the ability to arbitrate the dispute, claim or controversy shall likewise be determined in the arbitration.”  The court found that was sufficient, even without the incorporation of AAA rules, to take the class arbitrability decision out of the court’s ambit.

The court also took on some of the public policy arguments made in favor of keeping class arbitrability in the courts.  It said “[t]he arbitrator’s decision whether a class is available will be more efficient and more confidential than a court’s would be.  The determination of class availability has the same stakes and involves the same parties whether it is decided in a court or in arbitration.”  And while the arbitrator’s decision is “somewhat less reviewable than a court’s,….it will be no less reviewable than any other decision made in arbitration, and the law generally favors arbitration of many high-stakes questions.”  This is one of the most respectful, positive statements I have seen about arbitration in a court decision in a long time.  Curious though that the court did not address the frequent rebuttal to these arguments: that there could be financial incentive for an arbitrator or administrator to find a class can proceed.

The decision was not unanimous.  The lone dissenter from the panel wrote that “without a specific reference to class arbitration the court should presume that the parties did not intend to delegate to an arbitrator an issue of such great consequence.”

I am taking bets on how quickly SCOTUS grants cert to decide this circuit split.

The First Circuit just faced a fascinating formation issue: if a customer cannot see what she is signing, and no employee reads it to her or ensures she knows there are legal terms, is there a contract?  With Justice Souter sitting by designation on the panel, the court answered “no,” and thereby kept a class action in the courts. National Federation of the Blind v. The Container Store, Inc., 2018 WL 4378174 (1st Cir. Sept. 14, 2018).

The Container Store case involves blind plaintiffs who allege the retailer violated discrimination laws by failing to use tactile keypads on its point-of-sale (POS) devices.  In response, the retailer moved to compel individual arbitration for the plaintiffs who had enrolled in a loyalty program (which has an arbitration agreement and class action waiver).  The customers who enrolled in the loyalty program in a store alleged that they enrolled with the assistance of a sales associate, and were never presented with the terms and conditions of the program, including the arbitration provision.   In response, the retailer presented excerpts from a training manual, which instructed employees to give blind plaintiffs the opportunity to review the terms on the POS device.  Critically, the retailer did not have evidence that the employee who helped sign up the named plaintiffs had in fact read the terms and conditions to those plaintiffs or otherwise made them aware that there were any terms and conditions.  Therefore, the district court found no agreement to arbitrate was formed between the Container Store and those plaintiffs, and denied the motion to compel arbitration.

On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed.  It first disagreed with the Container Store’s argument that this dispute was one about the validity of the loyalty agreement as a whole, such that it must be heard by an arbitrator.  Instead, it concluded that this was a fundamental dispute about the formation of the arbitration agreement, which was properly addressed by the court.  (The First Circuit even got punny:  “We reject the Container Store’s attempt to re-package Plaintiffs’ arguments as one regarding validity…”)

It then got into the guts of the argument.  It affirmed the critical findings of the district court: “it is undisputed that the in-store plaintiffs had no way of accessing the terms of the loyalty program, including the arbitration agreement”; and “No store clerk actually informed them that an arbitration agreement existed as a condition of entering the loyalty program.”  Therefore, even though “inability to read” is not generally a defense to contract formation, the court found no arbitration agreement was ever formed with these plaintiffs.  Unlike other situations where plaintiffs who could not read knew or should have known that they were signing documents that implicated legal rights, in this case the court found “zero hint” that the loyalty program involved terms and conditions.

Finally, with respect to a class of plaintiffs who had signed up for the loyalty program online, and thereby did have notice of the terms and conditions, the court still denied the motion to arbitrate.  It found the arbitration agreement was illusory and therefore unenforceable under Texas law.  The court found language in the arbitration agreement gave the Container Store “the right to alter the terms of the loyalty program, including the arbitration provision, ‘at any time'” and the change would have retroactive effect, affecting even parties who had already invoked arbitration.

This case reminds me of the First Circuit’s big decision in Uber  in June, when the court found that the arbitration agreement in Uber’s terms also was not conspicuous enough to be binding.  In other words, this issue is not limited to individuals who have disabilities, but gets at the fundamental question of how much information do consumers need to validly form a contract.

This case also makes me smile because guess which firm represented the Container Store?  Sheppard Mullin, the same firm that was not able to enforce its own arbitration agreement with its client in the last post.   Rough arbitration month for those attorneys.

 

In today’s post I recount an epic battle between the Rules of Professional Conduct (tagline: saving clients from unscrupulous lawyers for over 100 years!) and the Uniform Arbitration Act (tagline: saving arbitration from hostile judges for 60 years!) in the Supreme Court of California.  Spoiler alert: the Rules of Professional Conduct win.

The story in Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Manufacturing Co., 2018 WL 4137103 (Cal. Aug. 30, 2018), begins with a “large law firm” [ed: with too many names] taking over the defense of J-M in a qui tam action in federal court in March of 2010.  The problem was that one of the public entities that had been identified as a real party in interest in the qui tam case was also a client of the firm (for employment matters).  Because both clients had signed engagement letters with general language waiving potential conflicts, the firm concluded it could take on the qui tam action.

The SMRH firm defended J-M for just one year before its employment client moved to disqualify it.  In that time, the firm had put in 10,000 hours defending J-M, and was still owed over one million dollars in fees.  The district court disqualified the firm based on the firm’s failure to adequately inform the employment client and J-M of the adversity before obtaining waivers, as required by the Rules of Professional Conduct.

At that point, the law firm sought its million dollars of unpaid fees from J-M in a state court action, and J-M in turn sought disgorgement of the two million dollars it had already paid.  The law firm successfully moved to compel arbitration, with the trial court dismissing J-M’s argument that the conflict of interest made the whole contract illegal and unenforceable. (And, the Court of Appeals refused a discretionary review which could have avoided the wasted fees of the arbitration.)

A panel of arbitrators awarded the law firm more than $1.3 million.  The parties were then back in state court with cross-motions to confirm and vacate the award.  The trial court confirmed the award.  However, the Court of Appeal reversed.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of California agreed that the arbitration award must be vacated.  It rested its decision on precedent from 1949, noting that “an agreement to arbitrate is invalid and unenforceable if it is made as part of a contract that is invalid and unenforceable because it violates public policy.”  In this case, the court found that the Rules of Professional Conduct were an expression of public policy, such that a violation of those rules could render an arbitration agreement void.  And it also found that the firm’s failure to give both of its clients notice of the actual adversity, and obtain informed consent of the representation, was a violation that tainted the entire contract and made it illegal.  (For you ethics geeks, the rule violated was 3-310(C)(3).)

Because the contract between the law firm and J-M was unenforceable, the court found the firm was “not entitled to the benefit of the arbitrators’ decision” and the parties could resume “where they were before the case took its unwarranted detour to arbitration.”  (Not sure why the court refused to say it was vacating the arbitration award.)  But, don’t shed too many tears for the lawyers.  The law firm will be able to argue in the trial court regarding whether it is entitled to any of its fees under the equitable doctrine of quantum meruit.  (Two judges dissented from that last part, finding that the ethical conflict should prevent the firm from recovering at all.)

I leave it to other blogs to discuss the ethical issues for lawyers present here, and to therapists and firm counsel to address the rising panic that lawyers may feel when reading this opinion.  For my purpose, this case is further demonstration that the type of arbitration agreement that is most susceptible to arguments of invalidity is the one between an attorney and client.  (Recall the recent decision in Maine.)  It is also interesting in that it does not discuss whether J-M “waived” its objection to arbitrability at all by participating in the arbitration, indeed there is no discussion of whether or how often J-M raised its objection during the arbitration.  That is a sharp contrast to the rule cited by the 9th Circuit in the Asarco decision (summarized last post), and an example of how inconsistent the rules are regarding waiver.

I have saved up six opinions that considered whether to vacate an arbitration award over the summer.*  Only one of those opinions vacated the award; the other five confirmed.  To get a flavor of what types of arguments are winning and losing motions to vacate, here is a summary of those six.

Vacated

The lone vacatur came in Hebbronville Lone Star Rentals, LLC v. Sunbelt Rentals Industrial Services, LLC, 2018 WL 3719682 (5th Cir. Aug. 6, 2018). The issue in that case was whether the arbitrator exceeded his power by reforming the parties’ contract.  Sunbelt had purchased the assets of Lone Star, and agreed to later pay earnouts based on the post-sale revenue from Lone Star’s customers.  The asset purchase agreement provided that disputes over the amount of earnouts would be decided by the parties “jointly [selecting] the Accounting Firm to resolve any remaining dispute over Seller’s proposed adjustments…which resolution will be final.”  (If that doesn’t sound like an arbitration clause to you, be sure to read this post.)   A dispute arose over whether the revenues from certain Lone Star customers exceeded a target number established in the agreement.  The parties submitted that dispute to an accounting firm.

The arbitrator found that Sunbelt should have included the revenue of two additional customers, which would have resulted in a payment to Lone Star of $6.4M.  However, the arbitrator also concluded that the parties made a mutual mistake in calculating the target number in the agreement, and if the corrected target number was used, Lone Star was actually entitled to nothing.  Lone Star moved to vacate the portion of the arbitrator’s award that reformed the target amount based on mutual mistake.  The district court granted the vacatur, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.  Oddly, the opinion is not framed in terms of vacatur at all; it does not reference Section 10(a) of the FAA.  Instead, the opinion framed the question as “who decides” the question of mutual mistake.  The court interpreted the language of the parties’ arbitration clause and found it too narrow to encompass the mutual mistake issue.  Therefore, that issue was remanded to the district court for determination.  (Also odd is the absence of any discussion of waiver in this opinion.   My sense is if the arbitrator had been a lawyer instead of a CPA, the analysis may have been quite different.)

Confirmed

The courts found the arguments for vacatur insufficient in five other cases:

  • In another case regarding earnout payments after an asset purchase, an accountant/arbitrator was appointed to hear the seller’s claim that the buyer was manipulating sales to ensure no earnout was owed.  DFM Investments, LLC v. Brandspring Solutions, LLC, 2018 WL 3569353 (8th Cir. July 25, 2018).  After reviewing documents and hearing arguments, the arbitrator found the seller not entitled to any revisions.  The seller moved to vacate, arguing the arbitrator had refused to consider material evidence.  The district court and Eighth Circuit disagreed, noting that the arbitrator concluded the additional evidence was not material.  “An arbitrator’s reasoned decision to forgo analyzing additional evidence does not, without more, provide grounds for vacating the decision.”
  • In a case that reminds all advocates to carefully preserve objections, the Ninth Circuit confirmed an award because the complaining party did not properly preserve its objection. Asarco LLC v. United Steel, 2018 WL 3028692 (9th Cir. June 19, 2018).  Like in Sunbelt, the issue was whether the arbitrator had the power to reform the parties’s labor agreement based on mutual mistake, despite a provision in the contract depriving the arbitrator of “authority to add to, detract from or alter in any way the provisions of” the contract.  The district court concluded the arbitrator had authority to reform the labor agreement.  The Ninth Circuit found Asarco had conceded the issue by arguing the arbitrator lacked authority, instead of preserving that issue for the courts by refusing to address jurisdiction with the arbitrator (0r seeking injunctive relief at the outset).  (Wow – what a harsh rule.)  Even so, the court analyzed the merits and found the arbitrator had authority to reform the agreement.  However, one dissenting judge wrote that he would vacate the award based on the arbitrator exceeding the scope of his powers.
  • In another case from the Eighth Circuit, the court refused to vacate an arbitration award, even though the arbitration award was nearly three times the contractual liability limit.  Beumer Corp. v. Proenergy Services, 2018 WL 3767135 (8th Cir. Aug. 9, 2018).  The arbitrator found the provision limiting damages to the “Contract Sum” was enforceable, but that attorneys fees and interest did not count as “damages” for the purpose of that provision.  The court found that, even if the arbitrator had overlooked Missouri decisions finding attorneys fees count as damages, it did not matter because manifest disregard of the law is not a valid basis to vacate an award.
  • Speaking of “manifest disregard,” Maryland’s high court took the opportunity to clarify that it lives on as a basis for vacating awards under Maryland’s Uniform Arbitration Act.  WSC/2005 LLC v. Trio Ventures Assoc., 2018 WL 3629441 (Md. July 30, 2018).  However, the arbitrator in Trio did not manifestly disregard the law, because he did not make “a palpable mistake of law or fact appearing on the face of the award.”  In fact, the arbitrator identified relevant principles of Maryland law, analyzed the parties’ contract, and issued damages that were “reasonably consistent” with principles of Maryland law.
  • Finally, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island confirmed an arbitration award, despite allegations that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law, in Prospect Chartercare LLC v. Conklin, 2018 WL 2945664 (R.I. June 13, 2018).  The arbitrator awarded 18 months of severance to an executive employee, and the employer moved to vacate the award based on the arbitrator’s alleged manifest disregard of the law by relying on “erroneous facts” and disregarding the contract language.  On appeal, the high court noted that even if the arbitrator had based his decision on a factual error, “such a mistake would not be a proper basis upon which to vacate the arbitration award.”  Furthermore, the arbitrator’s award was based upon a “passably plausible interpretation” of the parties’ agreement.

 

* There were more than six judicial opinions on whether to confirm an arbitration award over the summer, of course.  I focus on federal appellate courts (circuits and SCOTUS) as well as the highest court of each state.

Today’s post concerns a perennially hot topic: class actions.  In particular, do courts decide whether an arbitration agreement allows for class actions?  Or do arbitrators?  (Because, it turns out, there are actually some corporations who have not inserted class action waivers in their consumer contracts.)  To date, four circuit courts have held that class arbitrability is an issue that is presumably for courts (not arbitrators) to decide, even if the parties incorporate rules that generally delegate issues of arbitrability to an arbitrator (3rd, 4th, 6th, 8th).  In recent weeks, the Tenth Circuit and Eleventh Circuit disagreed.  Because the Second Circuit had also previously disagreed, there is now a 4-3 split among the circuits over whether the incorporation of AAA (or similar) rules is sufficient to authorize an arbitrator to decide whether arbitration can proceed on a class-wide basis.

In Spirit Airlines v. Maizes, 2018 WL 3866335 (11th Cir. Aug. 15, 2018), members of Spirit Airlines’ “$9 Fare Club” started a class arbitration with the AAA.  Spirit then brought an action to federal court, seeking a declaration that the arbitration clause did not authorize class arbitration.  (You may recall that the outcome of the Stolt-Nielsen and Sutter cases is that there can be no class arbitration unless the parties agreed to that process in their arbitration clause, but the language does not have to be explicit.)  The district court found that the arbitrator should determine the issue of whether a class action could proceed in arbitration.

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit found that no special rules apply to class arbitration.  It assumed that class arbitration is a gateway issue of arbitrability, such that the court has presumptive authority to decide it.  Here, the Spirit agreement called for the AAA rules, which the court found included the Supplementary Rules for Class Arbitration, and those supplementary rules empower an arbitrator to decide whether claimants may proceed as a class action.  The court found that incorporation of AAA rules was clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties intended the arbitrator to decide the availability of a class action in arbitration.  It relied on earlier precedent finding that AAA rules are sufficient to delegate jurisdictional issues to arbitrators, and disagreed that SCOTUS rulings provide for any different outcome in the case of class arbitration.

In Dish Network v. Ray, 2018 WL 3978537 (10th Cir. Aug. 21, 2018), a former employee of Dish Network started a class and collective arbitration with the AAA.  The appointed arbitrator issued a Clause Construction Award, finding that he had authority to decide the issue and that the arbitration agreement permitted a collective action.  The arbitrator’s award included ten pages of analysis interpreting the text of the arbitration agreement to shed light on whether they agreed to allow class/collective actions in arbitration.  The district court denied Dish’s motion to vacate the Clause Construction Award, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed that decision.

On appeal, the court assumed without deciding that the availability of class arbitration is a gateway dispute for court to decide.  Even so, it found that the parties’ selection of AAA rules to govern the arbitration was sufficient to clearly and unmistakably delegate the issue of class arbitration to the arbitrator.  It acknowledged that four circuits had “require[d] more specific language delegating the question of class wide arbitrability,” but noted that the Second Circuit had disagreed with that holding earlier this year.  Following the lead of the Second Circuit, the court relied on precedent from Colorado and the Tenth Circuit finding that incorporation of AAA rules is sufficient to delegate arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Having concluded that the arbitrator had authority to determine whether the parties’ arbitration agreement allowed for class/collective actions, the court had little trouble finding that the arbitrator’s Clause Construction Award could not be vacated.  The court found that the arbitrator “interpreted the parties’ contract, which is all we are allowed to consider” and did not manifestly disregard the law.

The fact that this circuit split is heating up is interesting in light of one of the arbitration cases that SCOTUS will hear on October 29.  That case, Lamps Plus, presents the question of how specific the language of an arbitration agreement must be in order to authorize class arbitration.

_______________________________

A class action postscript.

A putative class of plaintiffs sued Bluestem Brands in federal court in Minnesota for claims related to its credit programs.  In response to a motion to compel arbitration, the district court compelled arbitration of some claims, but denied others, finding they fell outside the scope of the credit agreement’s arbitration clause.  On appeal, the Eighth Circuit found all claims fell within the arbitration clause.  Parm v. Bluestem Brands, 2018 WL 3733424 (8th Cir. Aug. 7, 2018).  After finding the arbitration clause was “broad” (because it used the magic phrase “arise out of”), it found the factual allegations for all claims “touch[ed] matters covered by the arbitration agreement,” because all allegations related to the financing agreements.

And, in further fallout from Epic Systems, roughly 1600 employees of Kelly Services alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act in federal court.  Gaffers v. Kelly Services, 2018 WL 3863422 (6th Cir. Aug. 15, 2018).  Kelly Services compelled individual arbitration with the employees who had arbitration agreements (about half).  As those employees’ only defense was that the Federal Arbitration Act should take a backseat to the FLSA or NLRA, the employees lost on appeal and will have to arbitrate.

Arbitration Nation is seven years old, and has 330 posts under its belt (and no seven year itch).  Hip hip hooray!  One of those posts is a perennial favorite, coming up over and over in search results: When Should You Choose JAMS, AAA or CPR Rules?  Because that comparison is five years old, we give you an update.  Here is a chart comparing the three sets of commercial rules on important topics.  Fair warning: the rules are very similar.  So, we added an asterisk in the first column to indicate an issue where there is some difference among the administrators.

Comparison of Popular Arbitration Rules in U.S.

Rule/Topic

Commercial Arbitration Rules – AAA

(Oct. 1, 2013)

JAMS Comprehensive Rules & Procedures

(July 1, 2014)

CPR Administered Arbitration Rules (July 1, 2013)
Filing Fee for $1,000,000 Claim * $8,475 For a two-party matter: $1,500 initial filing fee paid by the party initiating the arbitration and $1,500 for counterclaims. For matters involving three or more parties: $2,000. After that, a case management fee of 12% is assessed against all professional fees charged by arbitrator(s).

Non-refundable filing fee: $1,750

Admin Fee: $7,250

Deadline for Filing Answer/Response to Claim Within fourteen days after respondent receives notice of claim. Within fourteen days after respondent receives notice of claim. Within twenty days after the Respondent receives notice of claim from CPR.
Time to Hearing * None specified None specified The dispute should in most circumstances be submitted to the tribunal within six months after the initial pre-conference.

Number of Arbitrators *

(if not specified in arbitration agreement or agreed upon by parties)

If claim or counterclaim is under $1,000,000, the dispute will be heard by one arbitrator. If it is above that, then three arbitrators shall determine the case. The dispute will be heard by one arbitrator. The dispute will be heard by three arbitrators.
Mediation “Required” * In all cases where a claim or counterclaim exceeds $75,000, during the time that the arbitration is pending, the parties shall mediate their dispute, unless one or both parties opts out.

Not required; however, the Parties may agree, at any stage of the Arbitration process, to submit the case to JAMS for mediation.

 

Not required, however, the arbitrator may request CPR to arrange for mediation by a mediator acceptable to the parties.
Modification of Rules Parties may modify rules or procedures by written agreement. However, after appointing an arbitrator, such modifications require the consent of the arbitrator. Parties may modify rules as long as modification is legal and consistent with JAMS policies. Parties must notify JAMS and shall confirm the modifications in writing. Modifications are allowed; however, the parties must agree in writing to such modifications during the course of the arbitral proceeding.

 

 

Authority to Determine Jurisdiction

The arbitrator has the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim. The arbitrator has the authority to determine jurisdiction and arbitrability issues, including the existence, scope, and validity of an arbitration agreement, as a preliminary matter. The tribunal has the power to hear and determine challenges to its jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope or validity of the arbitration agreement.
Discovery * For cases of all sizes, the arbitrator manages the exchange of information “with a view to achieving an efficient and economic resolution of the dispute, while … safeguarding each party’s opportunity to fairly present its claims and defenses.” Cases with claims under $1,000,000 contemplate just document exchange, while those with claims exceeding $1,000,000 clarify that the arbitrator has discretion to order depositions “upon good cause shown.” For cases of all size, the parties are expected to exchange all relevant ESI and documents within 21 days after pleadings are filed.   In addition, each party may take one deposition of an opposing party. Empowers the tribunal to facilitate “such discovery as it shall determine is appropriate,” but must take into account the needs of the party and the desirability of making discovery efficient and cost effective.
Dispositive Motions The moving party must show that the motion is likely to succeed and dispose of or narrow the issues in the case. The arbitrator may permit summary disposition of a particular claim or issue, either by agreement of all interested parties or at the request of one party, provided such other interested parties are given reasonable notice to respond.

There is no specific rule regarding summary disposition.

However, the CPR has provided guidelines outlining principles & procedures that note dispositive motions are appropriate when a requesting party can demonstrate that early disposition of any factual or legal issue may be accomplished efficiently and fairly, or when all parties agree that early disposition of a particular issue would be desirable.

Emergency Relief and

Interim Protection

Before an arbitrator is appointed, a party may seek emergency relief and an emergency arbitrator will be appointed within one business day, and a schedule established within two business days.

The (regular) arbitrator may take whatever interim measures he or she deems necessary for the protection or conservation of property.

Before an arbitrator is appointed, a party can seek emergency relief and an Emergency Arbitrator will be appointed within 24 hours, and a schedule established within two days.

The (regular) arbitrator may grant whatever interim measures are deemed necessary, including injunctive relief and measures for the protection or conservation of property.

Before the tribunal is constituted, any party can request that an interim/emergency measure of protection be granted by a special arbitrator. The arbitrator will be appointed within one business day and shall conduct the proceedings “as expeditiously as possible.”

The (regular) panel may take any interim measures as the tribunal deems necessary to preserve assets or property.

 

Default Award Does not allow the arbitrator to render an award solely on the basis of default or absence of a party. Does not allow the arbitrator to render an award solely on the basis of default or absence of a party. The arbitration will proceed even if the Respondent fails to file a timely notice of defense. The tribunal is empowered to make an award on default; however, such award may only be made after the production of evidence and supporting legal arguments by the non-defaulting party.
Confidentiality * None JAMS and the Arbitrator are required to maintain the confidential nature of the Arbitration proceeding and the award, including the hearing, unless disclosure is necessary e.g. in connection with a judicial challenge or otherwise required by law. Unless otherwise agreed, the parties and the arbitrators shall treat the proceedings and related discovery as confidential, unless disclosure is necessary i.e. a judicial challenge or if required by law or to protect the legal right of a party.
Authority to Grant Relief

The arbitrator may grant any remedy or relief that the arbitrator deems just and equitable, and within the specific scope of the agreement of parties (e.g. specific performance of a contract).

The arbitrator may apportion the arbitration fees and expenses among the parties, and may award attorneys’ fees if all parties requested such an award or it is authorized by the arbitration agreement or law.

In determining the relief to be granted, the arbitrator should be guided by the rules of law agreed upon by the parties and the rules of law and equity that he or she deems most appropriate.

The arbitrator may allocate arbitration fees and arbitrator compensation, unless the parties’ agreement precludes that. The arbitrator also may award attorneys’ fees if provided by the parties’ agreement or applicable law.

The Tribunal may grant any remedy or relief, including but not limited to specific performance of a contract, which is within the scope of the agreement of the parties and permissible under the law(s) or rules of law applicable to the dispute.

Unless the parties’ agreement precludes it, the Tribunal may also allocate the costs of arbitration, including attorneys’ fees, in such manner as it deems reasonable.

Award Deadline Thirty days after the end of hearings, or if hearings are waived thirty days after arbitrator receives all of materials by the parties. Thirty days after the end of hearings, or if hearings are waived thirty days after arbitrator receives all of materials by the parties. Thirty days after the end of hearings; however, as long as the tribunal must only use “best efforts” to comply with this requirement.

Arbitration Nation thanks Haaris Pasha, a law student at the University of Minnesota, for contributing to this post.