Professor Donna Shestowsky, University of California, Davis – School of Law, has written an interesting research paper titled, “When Ignorance is Not Bliss: An Empirical Study of Litigants’ Awareness Of Court-Sponsored Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs,” to be published in Volume 22 (Spring 2017) of the Harvard Negotiation Law Review; UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper. In her article, Professor Shestowsky looks at whether individuals involved in state court litigation knew...
The “Summer of Arbitration” continues. In this edition, I focus on four big recent cases from the Second Circuit. One vacated an arbitrator’s certification of a class action. A second refused to vacate an award, despite an allegation of perjury. And the last two relate to nearly 1.7 billion dollars worth of international arbitration awards. (Although I refuse the designation of “flyover country” for my beloved Midwest, I do have to acknowledge that the New York courts get much sexier...
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has enforced a P&I Club’s internal claims appeal process as a legally binding alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) method, rejecting allegations brought by one the Club’s Members that the procedure was “fundamentally unfair.” TransAtlantic Lines LLC v. Am. Steamship Owners Mut. Prot. & Indemn. Ass’n, Inc., 2017 WL 2334995 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2017). The court’s holding is a reminder that a coverage decision, rendered...
Arbitration law’s “first principle” is “arbitration is a matter of consent, not coercion[,]” and class arbitration is no exception. (See, e.g., here.) In Jock v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., No. 15-3947, slip op. (2d Cir. July 24, 2017) (summary order), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit enforced that principle by vacating and remanding the district court’s judgment, which confirmed in part a class arbitration class certification award that purported to bind non-parties,...
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that an ExxonMobil Oil Corporation subsidiary may not enforce a $188 million International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) arbitral award against the Venezuelan government in the United States without first complying with the notice requirements provided for in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”). In Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd., et al. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 15-707 (2d Cir.,...
In a decision filed July 14, 2017, the US District Court for the Central District of California invoked the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) in refusing to vacate an insurance appraisal award determining the value of insured tools stolen from their owner. The decision, James Dickey, Inc. v. Alterra Insurance Company, is reported at 2017 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 109811.
There was a twist: The court used state law to find that federal law applied.
The parties, insurer and insured, had been unable to agree...
This recent case out of the Central District of California, Perez v. DirecTV Group Holdings, LLC, Case No. 8:16-cv-1440-JLS-DFMx, has some interesting allegations. The plaintiff claims that DirecTV contacted her, unsolicited, at her place of business and sold her a promotional deal there for satellite cable. After the plaintiff agreed to the deal, DirecTV installed the equipment that same day and then asked the plaintiff to sign an Equipment Lease Agreement (ELA). The ELA was entirely in English,...
I declare this the Summer of Arbitration. It’s not as sexy as the Summer of Love (which is celebrating its 50th anniversary, btw http://www.sftravel.com/summer-love-2017), but there has to be some recognition of the avalanche of arbitration cases on my desk (to say nothing of the regulation changes).
Today, I focus on the state supreme courts. In the last few months, ten separate state high courts have issued arbitration decisions. Many of those have addressed whether arbitrators properly...
When a claimant who is party to an arbitration agreement initiates litigation of arbitrable claims, the defendant in that case typically expects to be able to move successfully to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 4. In cases where the litigation is commenced in a federal district court whose geographical jurisdiction includes the agreed place or “situs” of arbitration, that expectation is likely valid. However, if the litigation is commenced in a district...