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.

Have you heard of the “summer slide“?  It’s the name for how students forget information they learned during the school year over summer vacation, but it’s equally apt for grown ups.  I definitely feel a little less smart when I am reading vampire novels by the pool in 95 degree heat.

Anyhow, Arbitration Nation to the rescue.  We are here to ensure no one loses their sharpness on the Federal Arbitration Act over the summer.  Today’s reminder: the general rule is that an arbitration agreement can only be enforced by the parties to that agreement.  And how better to timely bring that lesson to life than with an international pop star and a World Cup contest?!

Before the last World Cup, Sony sponsored a song-writing contest.  It invited entrants to submit an original song and music video, with a promise that the winning composition would be on the official World Cup Album.  (Didn’t know there was such a thing?  Check out the songs.)  The plaintiff in this case submitted his song, but did not win.  About two years later, Ricky Martin (who had been involved with the World Cup contest) released the song “Vida.”  Plaintiff alleged that the “Vida” music video was similar to plaintiff’s contest video and violated federal copyright/trademark laws.

In response, Ricky Martin moved to compel arbitration.  He relied on the arbitration agreement in the contest rules.  The district court granted his motion, noting that Martin was a third-party beneficiary and referenced in many parts of the contest terms.  On appeal, however, the First Circuit reversed, finding Ricky Martin was a non-signatory who did not fit any exception to the general rule.  Cortes-Ramos v. Martin-Morales, 2018 WL 3134601 (1st Cir. June 27, 2018). In finding no clarity that the contracting parties intended to make the singer a third-party beneficiary, the appellate court focused on two things: the carve-out language in the arbitration agreement which implied that the only parties were the entrants and the co-sponsors; and references to Martin in other parts of the contest rules, but not in the arbitration agreement (suggesting the drafters knew how to reference him when they wanted to).

Nobody Wants To Be Lonely, of course, so let’s be sure to point out that other non-signatories have lost bids to compel arbitration recently:

  • In Olshan Foundation Repair Company of Jackson, LLC v. Moore, 2018 WL 3153353 (Miss. June 28, 2018), a contractor lost its effort to compel arbitration with the daughter of its customers.  The contract was between the contactor and the parents to repair the foundation of the parents’ home.  But the adult daughter also sued the contractor for her emotional distress after the repairs went awry.  The court found she was not a third-party or direct beneficiary of the contract and that estoppel was not appropriate because the daughter’s claims did not rely on the terms of the contract.
  • In Jody James Farms v. The Altman Group, Inc., 2018 WL 2168306 (Tex. May 11, 2018), an insurance agency lost its effort to prove that the arbitration agreement in the insurance policy between the insured and insurer also covered the independent agent.  The court began by finding that incorporating the AAA rules does *not* show a clear and unmistakable intent to arbitrate arbitrability (unlike this 8th Cir. case and most others), so that the court did not have to defer to the jurisdictional ruling already made by the arbitrator.  On the merits, the court found that the insurance policy treated arbitration as only between the insured and insurer, and that the insurance agent also did not prove application of the exceptions for agency (!), third-party beneficiary, or estoppel.
  • In Huckaba v. Ref-Chem, L.P., 2018 WL 2921137 (5th Cir. June 11, 2018), an employer lost its effort to compel arbitration of a former employee’s claims.  In a wake up call for employers everywhere, the employer lost because it did not counter-sign the employment agreement.  The court found that under Texas law, the parties intended not to be bound unless both parties signed the agreement.  They demonstrated that intent by: including a signature block for the employer, noting that “by signing this agreement the parties are giving up any right they may have to sue each other,” and requiring any modifications be signed by all parties.

Okay, today’s refresher course is complete.  Go back to your summer fun.

Almost a year ago, the Second Circuit praised the clean, readable design of Uber’s app.   Because the reference to Uber’s terms of service was not cluttered and hyperlinked to the actual terms, the Second Circuit held Uber could enforce its arbitration agreement and the class action waiver within it.  But, just last week, the First Circuit disagreed.  In Cullinane v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2018 WL 3099388 (1st Cir. June 25, 2018), it refused to enforce an arbitration clause in Uber’s terms of service and allowed a putative class action to proceed.  The First Circuit found customers were not reasonably notified of Uber’s terms and conditions, because the hyperlink to those terms was not conspicuous.

The Cullinane opinion was applying Massachusetts law on contract formation.  Massachusetts has not specifically addressed online agreements (or smart phone apps), but in analogous contexts has held that forum selection clauses should be enforced if they are “reasonably communicated and accepted.”  In particular, there must be “reasonably conspicuous notice of the existence of contract terms and unambiguous manifestation of assent.”  The Meyer opinion was applying California law on contract formation.  But the test was identical, because both states had borrowed it from a Second Circuit decision about Netscape.  So, the state law at issue does not explain the different outcome.

The one thing that might explain the different outcome is that the two federal appellate courts appear to have analyzed slightly different versions of Uber’s app.  In Cullinane, the lead plaintiffs had signed up between Dec. 31, 2012 and January 10, 2014.  (The court reproduced the actual screen shots early in its opinion.)  In Meyer, the lead plaintiff had signed up in October, 2014, and Uber had altered the design of its sign-up screens.  (There, the screen shot is an addendum to its opinion.)  For example, the background was now white in late 2014, instead of black, and the “Terms of Service & Privacy Policy” were in teal, instead of white text.

And, those are some of the aspects of the design that the First Circuit pointed to as critical.  It noted that hyperlinked terms are usually in blue text and underlined, but that the Cullinane plaintiffs’ were faced with hyperlinked “Terms of Service” that were not blue or underlined.  Instead, they were in white text in a gray box, no different than other non-hyperlinked text like “scan your card” on the same screen.   In addition, the First Circuit found the text stating “by creating an Uber account you agree to the [Terms]” was insufficiently conspicuous for similar reasons.  For those reasons, the Cullinane opinion found “the Plaintiffs were not reasonably notified of the terms of the Agreement, they did not provide their unambiguous assent to those terms.”

This is another example of how unsettled some aspects of arbitration law are (and maybe consumer contracting in general).  In Meyer, the district court had denied Uber’s motion to compel arbitration, and the appellate court reversed, granting the motion to compel arbitration.  And in Cullinane, the district court had granted Uber’s motion to compel arbitration, and the appellate court reversed, denying the motion to compel arbitration.  Those four courts were applying the exact same legal standard of conspicuousness, and reached opposite conclusions in the span of less than a year.

The lesson here is two-fold.  First, there is no clear standard for when terms on a website (or on a receipt, or in a box) are sufficiently conspicuous, so judges are left to their own devices (pun intended) to answer that question.  Second, unless an on-line provider wants judges — who are likely untrained in the psychology of consumer design related to five inch screens (and may not even have any apps) — to keep on getting to whatever result they please, the only solution is to require a consumer to actually click “I agree” after viewing a screen of the terms and conditions.  Unless, of course, SCOTUS grants certiorari of this new “circuit split” and issues guidance…

 

I am a true arbitration nerd.  But, when SCOTUS takes a THIRD arbitration case for its upcoming term, I wonder if the Justices are more obsessed with arbitration than I am.  (Reminder of the other two here.)  If they hear about the same total number of cases as this year (69), arbitration will make up more than 4% of their docket.  Now, 4% isn’t huge.  For reference, intellectual property cases made up less than 4% of cases filed in federal district courts last year, and there were three I.P. cases decided by SCOTUS (two on inter partes review and the WesternGeco case).  At least I.P. cases have a category in the annual judiciary report, though.  That’s more than arbitration can say.  And still, it has three cases before the Supremes.

Enough stats, what is this case?  It is Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc., in which SCOTUS is going to resolve the circuit split over the “wholly groundless” doctrine.  Given how the NLRB decision just came out, I don’t think I’m stepping too far out on a limb if I predict: “wholly groundless” will be grounded.  (Maybe even “grounded wholly?”  Seriously, there has got to be some good word play possible, but I am too tired from watching the World Cup to develop it.)  Put simply, that doctrine will not stand in the way of any future delegation clauses.

(Thanks to Mark Kantor for being the first to tell me certiorari was granted in this case.)

__________________________________

Switching gears, there are three new decisions from state high courts on the arbitrability of claims against nursing homes.  Two enforce the arbitration clauses, and one decidedly does not.

Nebraska and Colorado issued the pro-arbitration decisions, in both cases reversing a trial court’s refusal to enforce arbitration agreements.  In Colorow Health Care, LLC v. Fischer, 2018 WL 2771051 (Colo. June 11, 2018), the district court denied the nursing home’s motion to compel arbitration because it was not in bold text, as required by a state statute.  Without any discussion of the FAA (which would have been a much easier ground for reversal), the Colorado Supreme Court found that the statute only requires substantial compliance, and the defendant had substantially complied (by including the right language, in a larger font size than required, just not in bold). In Heineman v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, 300 Neb. 187 (June 8, 2018), the district court had found the arbitration agreement lacked mutuality, violated the state arbitration statute, and violated public policy (because of the CMS rule on arbitration).  On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nebraska found mutuality, found the FAA applied and preempted the state arbitration statute, and noted that the CMS rule had been enjoined.

A week later, though, Nebraska rejected arbitrability in a different case against a nursing home.  In Cullinane v. Beverly Enterprises-Nebraska, Inc., 300 Neb. 210 (June 15, 2018), the issue was whether the arbitration agreement signed by the deceased’s husband was enforceable.  He admitted he signed all the admission documents, but stated in an affidavit that he understood he had to agree to arbitrate for his wife to be admitted to the facility.  He also stated that he did not understood he was waiving his wife’s right to a jury trial, and would not have signed if he had known that and that arbitration was optional.  Applying the FAA and state contract law, the Nebraska Supreme Court found the district court was not “clearly wrong” when it found the husband was fraudulently induced to executing the arbitration agreement for his wife.  Critically, the facility had not introduced any affidavit contradicting the alleged statements made at the time of admission.

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.

 

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.

 

 

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.