The American Arbitration Association ("AAA") has announced on its website that it is offering a "Streamlined Three-Arbitrator Panel Option" for large, complex cases. It's a fresh idea that is worthy of parties' consideration in cases where the rules (see Section L-2(a)) or the parties' agreement requires a panel of three arbitrators to hear and decide the case. The Streamlined Three-Arbitrator Panel Option allows a single arbitrator to work with the parties in moving the case through the preliminary and discovery stages. A full panel participates in the evidentiary hearing and in rendering the final award.
Cost can be a deterrent when parties are considering whether to mediate a complex business dispute. Mediation is an excellent opportunity to settle a case in advance of costly trial preparation, but mediation requires parties to pay for both a mediator and their attorneys' time to prepare for and attend the mediation. Are those costs recoverable if mediation is unsuccessful and findings at trial require the losing party to pay the winning party's attorneys' fees and costs? According to recent federal case law in the District of Massachusetts, the answer to that question depends on the basis of the fee-shifting award.
The Supreme Court may soon be taking on an issue that has divided several of the federal circuit courts. The circuits disagree on a fundamental question that relates to arbitration and labor law - whether an agreement to arbitrate is valid when an employee waives the right to bring claims against an employer as part of a class or collective. In other words, can an employee be barred from being part of a class action lawsuit where there is an agreement to arbitrate and a waiver of the right to pursue collective claims?
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals recently created a schism between the Circuits that may lead to the Supreme Court's intervention on an important issue: whether an employer may bar employees from bringing class action claims by requiring claims to be arbitrated. The 7th Circuit, in deciding that employers cannot do so, has diverged from the 5th Circuit, leaving a circuit split that the Supreme Court will now likely be compelled to resolve.
In AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state laws that prohibit consumer contracts from disallowing class-wide arbitration. On May 5, 2016, however, the Federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) proposed a new rule that would restore consumer's rights to bring class action lawsuits against banks and other certain financial firms.
As President Obama meets with Asian leaders this week, his conversations with Chinese president Xi Jinping will surely touch on what has become a contentious topic with deep implications in the international community - namely, the rise of Chinese expansionism into the South China Sea. This, in turn, will reverberate on the international order and ability of countries to hold each other accountable under international treaties.
As this blog has chronicled in the past, it is extremely difficult for an arbitral award to be vacated. The Federal Arbitration Act and many state arbitral acts provide very limited grounds for vacatur, as courts are reluctant to second-guess an arbitrator's decision. Indeed, courts have even refused to vacate awards when the arbitrator erred in his application of the law. Even a "grave error" made by the arbitrator is insufficient to vacate an award, as it is not amongst the grounds for vacating a decision.
Massachusetts law recognizes arbitration as "a remedy created by statute which limits its availability to the parties to an arbitration agreement." Rae F. Gill, P.C. v. DiGiovanni, 34 Mass.App.Ct. 498, 503 (1993). In other words, a statute - the Massachusetts Arbitration Act (G.L. c. 251) ("MAA") - creates the ability for parties to settle their legal disputes through arbitration, but those parties also must have a prior agreement to do so. But what happens when one party refuses to arbitrate?
The Massachusetts Appeals Court has ruled that an arbitrator exceeds her authority only when "she awards relief beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement, beyond that to which the parties bound themselves, or enters an award prohibited by law." Conway v. CLC Bio, LLC, 2015 WL 9883907, Mass. App. Ct. No. 14-P-350 (June 12, 2015), at 5-6. The Court also reiterated that the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") requires enforcement of an agreement to arbitrate statutory claims "absent a question of arbitrability, countervailing Congressional command, or cognizable challenge to the validity of the agreement to arbitrate." Id., at 10.
Arbitration agreements often name a particular arbitral forum to conduct an arbitration, but what if, when a dispute arises, that arbitral forum no longer exists or is otherwise unavailable? In Inetianbor v. CashCall, Inc., 768 F.3d 1346, 1350 (11th Cir. 2014), the Eleventh Circuit held that "the failure of the chosen forum precludes arbitration whenever the choice of forum is an integral part of the agreement to arbitrate, rather than an ancillary logistical concern." This ruling reinforced Eleventh Circuit precedent and reflects the law in the majority of Circuit Courts that have considered the question.
In a recent decision, Bliss Realty Trust v. Roos Company, LLC et al., Civil Action 2014-7562, Superior Court Judge Dennis Curran dissolved a lis pendens he had granted only months earlier after he learned that the party seeking the lis pendens failed to notify the Court that the contract at issue contained a binding arbitration provision.
A recent SJC decision illustrates the unfortunate position in which a party may find itself when it fails to file an appeal but finds itself before an appellate court nonetheless as a result of an appeal filed by the opposing party. In Town of Athol v. Professional Firefighters of Athol, Local 1751, 470 Mass. 1001 (2014), the Supreme Judicial Court considered arguments that arose when town of Athol unilaterally raised the co-payments paid by members of a firefighters' union for medical services. After the union filed a grievance, alleging that the town's action had violated its collective bargaining agreement, the matter proceeded to arbitration. An arbitrator determined that changes to health insurance benefits were mandatory subjects of collective bargaining and the town had violated the collective bargaining agreement by making the changes unilaterally. The arbitrator required the town to return the co-payments to their original amounts and to "make union members whole for economic losses" incurred as a result of its improper action. The town appealed the arbitrator's award, filing a complaint in the Superior Court.
In a recent case, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District handed down a decision involving the question of whether the court or the arbitrator decides if a case involving a class action can be arbitrated when the arbitration agreement is silent as to that issue. Specifically, the court asked: "Who decides whether an agreement to arbitrate disputes between the parties to the agreement authorizes class and/or representative arbitration when the contract is silent on the matter--the arbitrator or the court?"
Party discovery in arbitration is quite limited, particularly in comparison to the scope of discovery permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, to what extent can an arbitrator order a third party - who, it should be noted, never agreed to arbitrate -- to appear and testify at an arbitration or to produce documents or other tangible items for use as evidence at an arbitration?
Employers and employees everywhere should check their employee handbooks - if it has an arbitration provision, it is likely any disputes between the two will take place in arbitration rather than in court.
In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that parties cannot agree under a contract to limit the scope of judicial review of an arbitration award as delineated by the Federal Arbitration Act (the "FAA"). This ruling complements a 2008 Supreme Court case, Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008), where the Court held that a clause in an arbitration agreement providing for expanded judicial review beyond what was provided for in the FAA was unenforceable. In light of the Ninth Circuit's new ruling, parties also cannot go the other way and curtail the scope of review to which the parties are entitled under the Federal Arbitration Act.
Parties to a dispute often cite cost control as a reason for choosing arbitration over litigation. To achieve the goal of keeping arbitration costs down, it is important for counsel to play an active role in advocating for cost control. Without counsel's vigilant attention from the outset of the case, arbitration costs can rival litigation expenses. This is especially true in international arbitrations where parties, counsel, and arbitrators hail from different parts of the world.
In August of this year, the Panama Canal will turn one hundred years old. An engineering marvel from its inception, the canal serves as a shortcut for 13,000 ships every day, making it one of the busiest and most important commercial waterways in the world. Efforts are underway to build an additional set of locks that would create a new lane of traffic, effectively doubling the canal's capacity.
Lost in the hype surrounding the Senkako-Diayou dispute between China and Japan over territoriality is another similar conflict that also involves China. For the last few years, China and the Philippines have been contesting a 2,000 mile stretch of sea that not only includes enormous deposits of oil and gas, but also serves as one of the world's primary shipping lanes.
The American Arbitration Association recently released Optional Appellate Arbitration Rules, which aim to provide parties with an opportunity to have appeals of an arbitral award heard within the arbitration process itself. Typically, applications to vacate arbitral awards are heard in courts, and the grounds for vacatur are quite limited pursuant to federal and state arbitration statutes.