N. D. of Texas Refuses to Grant Nonsignatory Samsung’s Motion to Compel Arbitration in Mobile Phone Litigation
This post has been viewed 3,248 times.
Applying California law, the Northern District of Texas stated a nonsignatory to an arbitration agreement “may invoke an arbitration clause to compel a signatory plaintiff to arbitrate its claims when the causes of action against the nonsignatory are intimately founded in and intertwined with the underlying contract obligations.” The court continued,
Read original articleWhen a nonsignatory seeks to enforce an arbitration clause, the doctrine of equitable estoppel applies in two circumstances: (1) “when the signatory to a written agreement containing an arbitration clause must rely on the terms of the written agreement in asserting [its] claims against the nonsignatory,” and (2) when the signatory alleges interdependent and concerted misconduct by the nonsignatory and another signatory and “the allegations of interdependent misconduct [are] founded in or intimately connected with the obligations of the underlying agreement.” Goldman, 92 Cal.Rptr.3d at 541 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Tags: arbitration agreement, Arbitration Clause, Northern District of Texas
Related Posts
June 24, 2014
The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1–16, codifies the federal policy of enforcing arbitration agreements....
June 18, 2014
The right to arbitrate a dispute is a right that arises out of a contract. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740,...
June 11, 2014
In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the Supreme Court held that a waiver of class action that was part of an arbitration clause...
