In January of 2016, SCOTUS granted review of an arbitration case from Hawaii, but summarily vacated and remanded it without analysis. (Unless you consider “Please read DIRECTV” substantive analysis.) Here’s the risk of that course of action: Hawaii can refuse to change its mind.
Last month, in Narayan v. The Ritz-Carlton Development Co., 2017
The actual and potential arbitration docket at the Supreme Court contracted in the last week due to three events.
First, SCOTUS made quick work of an appeal from the Hawaii Supreme Court. Remember when I predicted that the DIRECTV case was going to make it even harder for state courts to find arbitration agreements unenforceable
Hawaii issued a bold arbitration decision this month. It applied its state contract law to conclude that the parties did not form a clear arbitration agreement, but even if they did, it was unconscionable because it prohibited both discovery and punitive damages. Narayan v. The Ritz-Carlton Dev. Co., Inc., __ P.3d __, 2015 WL
The Supreme Court of Hawai’i concluded last week that it is fundamentally unfair to allow one party to an arbitration agreement to unilaterally select the arbitral forum. Nishimura v. Gentry Homes, Ltd., __ P.3d__, 2014 WL 5503393 (Haw. Oct. 31, 2014). The parties can either jointly agree to a forum, or the court will