Search

The article focuses on pre-dispute resolution of class action waivers in consumer arbitration. Topics discussed include Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) has supersedes state laws that would limit enforcement of arbitration clauses in contracts, fairness and efficacy of litigation and arbitration procedures for the resolution of consumer finance disputes fairness and moratorium on providing arbitration services in consumer debt collection by American Arbitration Association (AAA).

The article focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court case AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, which dealt with class action waivers for arbitration clauses in consumer contracts. Topics include the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), federal statutory claims, and monetary damages for breach of consumer contracts.

The article reports on the memorandum issued by the U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) designed when a class action waiver in a mandatory arbitration agreement conflicts with an employee's rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Employees are guaranteed with the right to engage in activities for mutual aid and protection. NLRB Attorney General Ronald Meisburg says it is not unlawful to require employees to agree to arbitrate individual non-NLRA statutory employment claims.

This article focuses on the adoption by Utah of the Uniform Mediation Act (UMA), the eight state in the U.S. to do so. It is mainly consistent with the UMA as drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Law, but includes certain unique definitions and other deviations, which are discussed. Utah also acted to legalize class action and arbitration waivers. A Senate bill amends Utah's Consumer Credit Code to allow creditors to include in their consumer contracts a waiver of a debtor's right to participate in a class action related to the contract.

This article discusses several U.S. court cases in which class action waivers were involved. An Alabama federal court held that it is up to the arbitrator to deem a class arbitration permissible under the agreement of two parties. An Arkansas court decided to enforce the clause that bars classwide proceedings, in a claim against a wireless provider. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals decided that a waiver of class arbitration is enough to deem a consumer arbitration agreement as unconscionable.

The article analyzes the consequences of U.S. arbitrators mistakenly presuming that intentional omissions by parties were unintentional. It explores the use of the Miles Law and Murphy's Law in arbitration cases. A particular focus is given to the Supreme Court case Epic Systems Inc. v. Lewis which validated class action waivers in arbitration. The application of common law and civil law arbitration cases is also discussed.

The article presents the evaluation of mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts in the U.S. Topics discussed include role of Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) in mandatory arbitration; interpretation of FAA by U.S. Supreme Court in a case AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion; and history analysis of mandatory arbitration clauses and class action bans on consumers ability to take recourse against corporations.

The article discusses the transformation on how resolving issues concerning gig workers has shifted to arbitration from litigation, particularly in addressing mass claims. Also cited are the rapid increase of the national and international gig workforce, and the compound annual growth rate of the gig economy in the U.S. and around the world.

The article reports on the court hearing of the 9th Circuit ruling of the class action waiver case by the U.S. Supreme Court. It notes that the case alleged that AT&T Mobility engaged in fraud by offering a free cell phone to new customers and then charging them sales tax on the retail price. The Court rules that the FAA preempts state law from making all class arbitration waivers unenforceable on unconscionability grounds or only some class action waivers.

The article reports on two rulings in California concerning the validity of class arbitration waivers. The California Court of Appeal found that a credit cardholder agreement in the Boehr v. Discover Bank case is under Delaware law and that the waiver can be enforced. The decision in the Aral v. Earthlink case stated that a waiver could not be enforced even though a provision indicated it was under Georgia law. An explanation is given for the two decisions to show why they are not inconsistent. The topics of choice-of-law provision and class action waivers are mentioned.

The article explores the advantages of commercial arbitration and addresses misperceptions about the use of arbitration for resolving business-to-business disputes. Topics discussed are arbitration as a tool for limiting expenses for arbitrator compensation, grounds for setting aside an arbitration award, arbitration as a private dispute resolution process and creature of contract, and arbitration as a tool for accommodating practical business needs.

The article revisits the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (RUAA) promulgated by the Uniform Law Commission in 2000. Topics discussed are relationship of state arbitration laws to the Federal Arbitration Act, applicability of RUAA and its nonwaivable provisions, applications for judicial relief, arbitrability of disputes, motions to compel or stay arbitration, interim remedies under RUAA, initiation of arbitration and consolidation of arbitration proceedings, vacatur or modification of award.

This article presents news briefs on dispute resolution in various U.S. states. The article reports that a California court has found that a person who orally admitted to agreeing to arbitration but later withdrew her consent could not invoke the principal of inadmissibility of evidence; she had evidence to the court voluntarily. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that unless arbitration agreements spell-out a cost-effective way to address individual claims, class action waivers could not be enforced.

The article discusses developments in technology arbitration as a solution to address various technology-related disputes in the U.S. and around the world. Other topics include the expansion of technology adoption in commercial sectors like ridesharing, home security, and online retail, the growing cases of cybersecurity arbitrations due to increasing cases of data breaches, and the possible use of arbitration in predictive algorithm, blockchain and biotechnology disputes.

The article reports that a California appeals court has recently ruled in a case that an arbitration clause in a residential construction contract was unenforceable because it did not comply with state notice requirements for arbitration agreements. The court held that the Federal Arbitration Act did not apply because the contractor cited no authority showing that interstate commerce was involved. The court reasoned that allowing state law to apply would lead to confusion. Because California rules are preempted by federal law, the California rule requiring California investors to arbitrate securities disputes out of state or else waive protections under California law will not apply. The California Supreme Court held in Discover Bank v. Superior Court of Los Angeles that class action waivers can be considered to be exculpatory, unconscionable contracts of adhesion under California law when they "have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent."

The article addresses the adoption of initial employment and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) discovery protocols by the American Arbitration Association (AAA). Topics discussed include reason arbitrators should use these protocols, purpose of the FLSA Protocols, and impact of the Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis case on cases involving state or federal FLSAs.

The article discusses whether the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts state laws that ban the mandatory arbitration of sexual harassment claims, and it mentions the establishment of anti-harassment laws in the wake of the #MeToo and #TimesUp social movements. The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the FAA-related case Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis is examined, along with the claim that sexual harassment claims will remain arbitrable until federal legislation is passed amending the FAA.

The article focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court case AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, which dealt with class arbitration waivers in arbitration agreements. Topics include the waiver of class action claims, the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), and public injunctive relief. Information is provided on false advertising.

This article presents information about state and federal Appeals Courts rulings that pertain to class arbitration waivers. In Robert Gentry v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court has ruled that classwide arbitration might be necessary to effectively enforce statutory policies about overtime pay even though a company's dispute resolution procedures specifically ban arbitrations that involve class claims. The Washington Supreme Court ruled that Cingular Wireless couldn't enforce a waiver of classwide proceedings with customers because the waiver was unconscionable.

The article examines the provisions of the U.S. Revised Uniform Arbitration Act aimed to promote uniformity of arbitration law.

The article reports on the refusal of the U.S. Supreme Court on petitions to review two arbitration cases including Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Montana.

The article focuses on the drafting of arbitration clauses for commercial healthcare contracts. Topics include the American Arbitration Association's (AAA) Commercial Arbitration Rules, the AAA Healthcare Arbitration Payor-Provider Rules, and how to create binding arbitration clauses. Information is provided on the arbitration of reimbursement disputes.

The article focuses on international commercial arbitration. Topics include the benefits of engaging in international arbitration for both parties, the time and costs associated with international arbitration, and the speed of conflict resolution. Information is provided on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and mediation.

The article focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court case AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, which dealt with arbitration agreement waivers under the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Information is provided on class action litigation, the enforcement of non-consensual arbitration agreements, and individual recovery of awards.

The article reports that the Alabama Supreme Court ruled on the Patriot Manufacturing v. Jackson case concerning enforcement of a stand-alone arbitration agreement under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The decision overturned the finding in the Ex Parte Thicklin case, which interpreted the federal act differently. The Alabama High Court gave reasons for questioning the validity of the decision in the Thicklin case. The issue was whether an arbitration agreement must be within a written warranty contract.

The article reports on the Mintze v. American General Financial Services, Inc. 434 F.3d 222 case and the 3rd Circuit appeals court ruling in January 2006 concerning the federal Bankruptcy Code. A Chapter 13 petitioner, Ethel Mintz, alleged that the lender violated the Truth in Lending Act and other consumer protection laws. Authority over core and non-core proceedings in arbitration, the enforcement of an arbitration agreement, and possible conflict concerning state and federal consumer protection laws are the issues in this case.

The article focuses on the argument of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), whether it displaces reliance on state law unconscionability principles to reject an arbitration agreement. It states that plaintiff Lisa Concepcion provides the Supreme Court an opportunity to define the enforceability of arbitration agreements that forbid class actions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the Supreme Court's role to ascertain unconscionability under the California law.

The article describes mistakes that are made by attorneys in arbitration, along with the ways to avoid them. It cites pre-hearing, evidentiary, and post-hearing mistakes such as the postponement of itemization of damages and grounds for recovery, repeating the direct examination on the cross-examination, and adding new claims after the hearing. Avoiding the mistakes requires attorneys to collaborate with each other and the arbitrator to achieve an efficient arbitration.

This article explains what evaluations of the Hurricane Katrina mediation program by participants, mediators, and data say about the program. The mediation program was created by the Louisiana Department of Insurance to resolve the hurricane-related property damage and destruction claims. Robert Wooley, Louisiana Commissioner of Insurance, and others met with the American Arbitration Association to set up the program. Participants rated most of the mediators as good or better. The mediators rated the program as highly successful. Although the general consensus was that the program was successful, there were some negative comments.

The article reports on the enforcement of class arbitration waivers and its impact on arbitration clauses. A class arbitration combines elements of an arbitration and a class-action suit by importing collective bargaining into the arbitration process. The use of class arbitration was implicitly validated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Green Tree Financial Corp v. Bazzle. In the case of Kristian vs. Comcast Corp., the 1st District Court ruled the class arbitration waiver in the customer service agreement of the cable company Comcast was unenforceable and severed that portion of the clause, allowing a class arbitration to proceed. Self regulating organizations (SRO) such as the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) have opted against class arbitration.

This article analyzes the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the case of Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle in order to provide guidance to drafters of arbitration clauses. In this case, the court vacated two multi-million dollar classwide arbitration awards, holding that it is for the arbitrator, not a court, to decide whether an arbitration agreement silent on the point authorizes the pursuit of class claims. The plaintiffs in Bazzle had signed mandatory arbitration agreements with Green Tree Financial related to certain home loans. When Green Tree failed to provide its customers with forms required by the South Carolina Consumer Protection Code advising them of their rights to name a lawyer as an insurance agent for the transaction, the plaintiffs filed two separate actions against the lender. Justice Stephen Breyer's opinion for the plurality sidestepped the question on which the court had granted certiorari. The court remanded the case because the rulings of the South Carolina courts deprived the parties of a decision by the arbitrator on the issue of whether to certify a classwide arbitration. The Supreme Court's ruling in Bazzle highlights the importance of spelling the issue out in the arbitration agreement, lest the arbitrator be empowered to interpret silence or ambiguity differently.

This article focuses on some court decisions on arbitration. The US 2nd Circuit Court held that a party who challenged the appointment of an arbitrator was not entitled to a prior court hearing on the validity of the arbitration agreement. In a dispute between the Transact International and American Engineering Corp. (ARC) the federal court denied ARC's motion to dismiss the case against it and instead dismissed Transact as a party. In another case between International Medical Group and Sirius International Insurance Corp., the 7th Circuit recently held that an arbitration provider was well within its rights to proceed with the administration of an arbitration against a company that claimed that it was not a party to an agreement to arbitrate, and that the doctrine of arbitral immunity protected the provider from liability. The Michigan Court of Appeals held that for the purpose of determining whether, under court rules, mediation sanctions are available after a party rejects a mediation evaluation and then loses at trial, the term "assessable costs" does not include mediation costs or attorney's fees incurred after the date of the evaluation. This was a third-party automobile negligence action arising from a collision that left the plaintiff William Dessart with injuries.

The article focuses on collective arbitration in New York in 2011. Information is provided on the New York court case JetBlue Airways Corp. v. Stephenson, which dealt with collective arbitration under arbitration agreements regulated by the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Topics include arbitration clause waivers and plurality.

The article presents information on a variety of legal cases related to arbitration and dispute resolution. The case of Awuah v. Coverall N.A., regarding the enforceability of an arbitration clause, was decided by the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. The case of Lawrence v. Manor, regarding wrongful death lawsuits and arbitration, was ruled on by the Supreme Court of Missouri. The case of Crisell Seguin v. Northrop Grumman Sys. Corp., regarding appeals of mandated arbitration, was decided by the Supreme Court of Virginia.

The article presents a list of books and articles related to dispute resolution. The books and articles include "Alternative Dispute Resolution for Government Contracts," by Donald P. Arnavas, "Don't Guess Who's Coming to the Table: Organizing the Mediation Process," by John Bickerman, "At the Crossroads of Federalism and Arbitration: The Application of Prima Paint to Purportedly Void Contracts," by Pierre H. Bergeron, "Current Issues in Consumer Arbitration," by Kelly Thompson Cochran and Eric J. Mogilnicki and "Trial by Special Judge: The Ignored Stepchild of ADR," by Dan Downy.

The article focuses on the U.S. court case Mack Green v. SuperShuttle International Inc., which dealt with the dismissal of federal actions without prejudice. Topics include the enforcement of arbitration clauses, the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), and arbitration waivers. Information is provided on the application of exceptions.

The article focuses on the U.S. court case Southern Pioneer Life Ins. Co. v. Thomas, which dealt with federal preemption of state law. Topics include the Arkansas McCarran-Ferguson Act, the Arkansas Uniform Arbitration Act (AAUA), and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Information is provided on arbitration clauses in contracts.

The article reports on the oral argument in the case CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood that was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on October 11, 2011. It states that the case raises concern whether consumer arbitration can be used for claims originating under the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA). It says that CompuCredit Corp. was represented by attorney Scott L. Nelson while the plaintiff, Wanda Greenwood, was represented by a Public Citizen Group attorney.

The article reports on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to dismiss the case Stok & Associates v. Citibank NA remanding the district court ruling on this case to waive contractual right and reconsiders it in light of the Supreme Court ruling in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Conception case. The Supreme Court agrees to hear the elements of the right to arbitration waiver under the Federal Arbitration Act. The court points out that it will appeal to any appeal from the remanded issues.

The article reports on the support of the U.S. Supreme Court to a class action waiver in consumer arbitration agreement. The court rules in the case AT&T Mobility LLC v. Conception that the unconstitutionability rule in California Supreme Court decision was displaced by the Federal Arbitration Act and cannot be used in holding class action waiver unenforceable. It points out that this decision of the court is favorable to business.

The article offers information on the oral argument for the court case between Stolt-Nielsen SA and AnimalFeeds International Corp. on December 9, 2009 at the U.S. Supreme Court. It states that the argument centers on whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) allows classwide proceedings wherein an arbitration agreement is silent, in response to the claims. Stolt-Nielsen representative Seth Waxman says in the argument that the arbitrators exceeded their authority by allowing class arbitration, even if the arbitration agreement is silent during the class actions availability. However, AnimalFeeds representative Cornelia Pillard notes in the argument that the arbitrators had responded to the issue delegated to them which was to determine the precluded class actions.

The article reports that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed on January 15, 2010 to review whether a district court is required to determine claims that an arbitration agreement under the Federal Arbitration Act is unconscionable. It relates that lawsuit of Antonio Jackson, who filed an action against his employer Rent-a-Center West claiming that he should not have to arbitrate his race discrimination claim because the arbitration clause he signed was unconscionable.

The article reports on the amicus curiae filed by the American Arbitration Association (AAA) in the pending case of Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp. It states that AAA has involved the amicus curiae in the case aiming to share experience in conducting class arbitration, as well as an overview of the arbitration rules. It highlights that the case pending at the U.S. Supreme Court will determine whether class arbitration implementation on parties whose arbitration clauses are silent on the issue is in agreement with the Federal Arbitration Act.

The author reflects on the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision in Superadio Limited Partnership v. Winstar Radio Productions which affirmed an arbitration award authorizing a monetary sanction for violation of a discovery order. He believes a stricter standard of review should be applied when a tribunal is deciding its own remedial power and that the award of monies as sanctions seems divorced from commercial reality. The broad approach to arbitral sanctioning power in this decision will invite inconsistent decisions allowing any award that the arbitrator deems justified and authorizing the arbitrator to resolve any disputes regarding the exchange of information.

The article focuses on rulings by two New York courts that mandatory arbitration agreements in residential home improvements contracts are unenforceable. In Ragucci v. Professional Construction Service, an appellate court determined that a contract for architectural services involved consumer goods. New York General Business Law nullifies mandatory arbitration agreements for contracts for consumer goods. In Baranoff v. Kean Development Co, a New York trial court ruled that a contract for residential construction service by a contractor involved consumer goods.

This article offers news briefs regarding arbitrator disclosures. A U.S. Appeals Court ruled that an arbitrator demonstrated partiality because he did not disclose a prior professional relationship with arbitration counsel. A Florida court rejected a challenge to an award based on an arbitrator's failure to disclose volunteer work that involved him with counsel for the claimant. In a real estate matter, the bankruptcy judge denied an arbitral award because the arbitrator had lunches with counsel for the landlord.

The article focuses on the revised rules of Professional Conduct that were approved by the Mississippi Supreme Court in November 2005. Attorneys and judges who serve as third-party neutral arbitrators will be affected by changes in Rule 1.12(a), interpretation of the imputation rule, Rule 2.4(b) which refers to disclosure of information to unrepresented parties, and Rule 2.2 which refers to conditions under which lawyers can act as intermediaries and requires written consent from clients involved in intermediation.

The article focuses on a complaint filed by the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports Executive Committee against the United States with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The complaint was filed for a declaration that the binational panel review system under Chapter 19 of the North America Free Trade Agreement is unconstitutional. The complaint arose out following the decision by the U.S. Trade Commission, which found a threat of injury to the U.S. lumber producers from subsidized and dumped imports of softwood lumber from Canada. According to the complaint, the binational panel totally ignored its mandate to apply the U.S. law and substituted its own judgment. The complaint further argues that those who provide services on binational panels are not rational as they are selected by the states to the dispute. The constitutional argument with regards to the complaint is that binational panels and extraordinary challenge committees replace judicial review of decisions by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Court of International Trade.