Brendan Gooley

First Circuit Vacates Order Compelling Arbitration Over Arbitrator Selection Clause

July 28, 2020 by Brendan Gooley

The First Circuit vacated an order compelling arbitration after finding that the arbitrator selection clause was unconscionable. The court nevertheless remanded the case to the district court to determine if the selection clause was severable from the remainder of the arbitration agreement and whether arbitration could therefore proceed. The court also rejected several other challenges to the district court’s arbitration order, including claims based on a forum selection clause, a claim of waiver, and an argument that a statutory claim was not subject to arbitration.

Austin Trout, a boxer from New Mexico, sued the World Boxing Organization (WBO), which is based in Puerto Rico, in New Mexico state court for removing him from the rankings for a certain weight class. The WBO successfully removed the case and had it transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. The WBO then moved to compel arbitration. While its motion was pending, Trout engaged in discovery, which prompted the WBO to do the same. The district court granted the WBO’s motion. It then denied Trout’s motion for reconsideration, which asserted for the first time that the WBO’s discovery precluded arbitration.

Trout appealed, and the First Circuit vacated and remanded.

The court first rejected Trout’s argument that the WBO’s championship regulations precluded arbitration because of a clause allowing claims to be brought in Puerto Rico state or federal court. The regulations contained two clauses. The first, a forum selection clause, provided that claims could only be maintained in Puerto Rico’s state or federal courts. The second, an arbitration clause, provided that “the sole and exclusive remedy for any claim” was an arbitration proceeding through the WBO’s Appeals and Grievance Committee. Trout claimed the former clause rendered the latter clause a nullity. The First Circuit disagreed, concluding that the former clause was more expansive than the latter and that the regulations read as a whole provided that only Puerto Rico courts could hear claims not subject to the arbitration clause.

The court also rejected Trout’s claim that the WBO waived its right to seek arbitration by (1) removing and transferring the case; and (2) engaging in discovery. The First Circuit explained that (1) the WBO did not waive its rights under the forum selection clause to select the forum to have its motion to compel decided; and (2) Trout’s discovery argument was improperly raised because it was first raised in a motion for reconsideration and it was meritless in any event because the WBO’s discovery “was not of a kind or of a scope that made it an abuse of discretion for a district court not to find an implicit waiver based on litigation conduct.”

The First Circuit then rejected Trout’s contention that his claim under the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act was not subject to arbitration. Although the court recognized that Congress can provide that certain statutory claims are not subject to arbitration, the act’s text did not “explicitly preclude[] arbitration” and Trout’s claim therefore failed.

The First Circuit agreed with Trout’s final claim that the WBO’s arbitrator selection provision was unconscionable under Puerto Rico contract law, however. That clause allowed the WBO’s president to designate three arbitrators. Even though the arbitrators could not be members of the WBO’s executive committee, they could, for example, be the president’s “direct aides.” Nevertheless, the First Circuit noted that the WBO’s regulations contained a savings clause that provided that “[i]f any of these Rules are determined to be unenforceable, the balance of these Rules shall remain in full force and effect.” Thus, the court left it to the district court to determine whether that clause allowed arbitration to proceed under a different selection process.

Trout v. Organización Mundial de Boxeo, Inc., No. 19-1068 (1st Cir. July 10, 2020).

Fourth Circuit Declines to Compel Arbitration Due to Missing Arbitration Agreements

July 8, 2020 by Brendan Gooley

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently declined to compel arbitration in a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) class action with respect to more than 70 employees for whom the defendant employer could not produce signed arbitration agreements due to apparent poor record-keeping.

April Hill worked for Employee Resource Group LLC (collectively with other defendants “ERG”), which operated Applebee’s restaurants in several states. Hill filed a putative FLSA class action. In response, ERG moved to enforce arbitration agreements it purportedly had with all its employees. In support of that motion, ERG submitted agreements containing arbitration clauses for a number of employees. It also admitted, however, that it could not locate signed arbitration agreements for a number of plaintiffs, including Hill. It therefore submitted an affidavit from its director of human resources, David Bates. Bates averred that all ERG employees are required to sign agreements containing arbitration clauses when they are hired, described the training that managers received requiring them to have new employees sign such agreements, and explained that the fact that some agreements could not be found was the result of record-keeping errors.

The district court granted ERG’s motion to compel arbitration with respect to the employees for whom ERG had produced signed arbitration agreements, but denied it with respect to the more than 70 other employees for whom ERG could not produce such agreements.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed. Applying state law that required a heightened standard for establishing the existence and terms of a contract through parol evidence and the summary judgment standard, the court concluded that no reasonable trier could conclude that ERG had presented sufficient evidence with respect to the individuals for whom it could not produce signed arbitration agreements. Bates’ affidavit described ERG’s general human resources policies. It did not describe the actual hiring process experienced by the class members in question. Nor was there any other evidence describing the processes for those employees. The arbitration agreements ERG produced for some 780 other employees did not cure this deficiency. ERG argued that the large number of agreements confirmed Bates’ sworn statement that all employees signed arbitration agreements. There was no evidence, however, of how many employees ERG had during the relevant time period. It could have been 900 or 9,000, which doomed ERG’s argument.

Hill v. Employee Resource Group, LLC, No. 18-2009 (4th Cir. June 9, 2020).

First Circuit Rejects Argument That Arbitration Clause Was Unenforceable Because Contract Containing the Clause Was Allegedly Terminated and Superseded

July 6, 2020 by Brendan Gooley

The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently rejected a party’s argument that an arbitration agreement was unenforceable because the contract containing the arbitration clause had been allegedly terminated and superseded. The court explained that arbitration clauses are generally freestanding and survive the termination of a contract, and concluded that the narrow circumstances in which a later agreement might terminate an arbitration clause were not satisfied in this case.

Kara Biller and her mother Joan McKenna sued Brookdale Greenwich Bay, an assisted living facility, for a variety of tort claims related to allegedly inadequate medical treatment McKenna received while she was a resident at Brookdale.

Brookdale moved to compel arbitration under the terms of a “residency agreement” that Biller signed on McKenna’s behalf when McKenna moved into Brookdale.

In response, Biller and McKenna argued, among other things, that the residency agreement and its arbitration clause expired when McKenna was subsequently moved to a new unit within Brookdale and a new implied-in-fact contract was created that superseded the residency agreement.

The district court declined to compel arbitration. The First Circuit reversed.

As an initial matter, the court rejected Brookdale’s argument that the arbitrator should decide gateway issues of arbitrability rather than the court. The residency agreement’s arbitration clause did not establish that such issues were for the arbitrator in clear and unmistakable language.

The court therefore considered Biller and McKenna’s arguments, including their contention that the residency agreement and its arbitration clause were void because the agreement contained a clause allowing either party to terminate the agreement if McKenna had to “be relocated due to [her] health.” The court noted that it was up to the arbitrator, not the court, to interpret that clause to determine what “relocate” meant and whether McKenna’s move within Brookdale qualified as a relocation that triggered that clause.

That did not end the matter, however, because Biller and McKenna argued that no agreement to arbitrate existed because the agreement had terminated when McKenna “relocated.” The court rejected that agreement. It explained that unless an agreement provides otherwise, arbitration clauses are freestanding and severable and that an argument that an arbitration clause is invalid on a ground that affects the entire agreement is generally for the arbitrator to decide. The court also explained that there is a presumption that arbitration clauses survive the underlying contract. There was no evidence that the arbitration clause was not severable in this case.

The court then rejected Biller and McKenna’s other arguments that the relocation had created an entirely new agreement that superseded the residency agreement and its arbitration clause and that the arbitration clause was unconscionable. Although the court noted that parties could extinguish arbitration clauses, there was no evidence that the parties did so in this case by, for example, entering into a new contract that completely covered the same subject matter as the original contract and that was inconsistent with that agreement. Nor was the agreement unconscionable under Rhode Island law, which sets a “daunting” standard for unconscionability.

Biller v. S-H Opco Greenwich Bay Manor, LLC, No. 19-1865 (1st Cir. June 5, 2020).

Court Compels Arbitration With Respect to Insurers, Not Brokers

June 18, 2020 by Brendan Gooley

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas recently compelled arbitration against insurers but not brokers related to a commercial insurance dispute.

After Hurricane Harvey decimated Houston, an insured sought coverage under its commercial insurance policy. The insurers, several of whom were foreign, denied coverage. The insured filed suit against the insurers based on the denial and an alleged failure to investigate. It also sued the brokers who developed the policy on the theory that the brokers had failed to disclose that the policy contained an allegedly “unique and extremely onerous” arbitration clause.

The insurers and brokers sought to compel arbitration under that clause. The district court granted the insurers’ motion but denied the brokers’ motion and stayed the action.

The court concluded that the requirements of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards were met with respect to the insurers and rejected the insured’s argument that the Convention’s exception where the arbitration agreement is “null and void” applied. The insured contended that the arbitration agreement was “unconscionable” under Texas law because it required arbitration to occur in and be subject to the law of New York, set strict limitations on damages, and required the tribunal to comprise senior underwriters or claims handlers. The court explained that the “null and void” exception “is limited to standard breach-of-contract defenses capable of being applied neutrally on an international scale – such as fraud, mistake, duress, waiver, and the like.” There was no evidence of that here.

With respect to the broker defendants, the court noted that they were not signatories to the insurance agreement and its arbitration clause and that non-signatories could compel arbitration in limited circumstances. The court rejected the contention that “intertwined-claims estoppel” applied, explaining that the insured’s complaint did not establish a sufficiently close relationship between the insurers and the brokers for that doctrine to apply. The court also rejected “direct-benefits estoppel,” explaining that the doctrine was not applicable because the insured’s claims against the brokers related to alleged misrepresentations and omissions in the insurance contract’s development and did not assert breaches of the insurance policy. “[N]o interpretation of the insurance policy [was] necessary to adjudicate the misrepresentation claims” against the brokers.

The court nevertheless stayed court proceedings pending completion of the arbitration.

5556 Gasmer Management LLC v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 4:19-cv-00974 (S.D. Tex. May 29, 2020).

U.S. Supreme Court Holds Equitable Estoppel Can Allow Non-Signatories to Compel Arbitration Under the New York Convention

June 16, 2020 by Brendan Gooley

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that equitable estoppel doctrines can be invoked by non-signatories seeking to compel arbitration under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.

ThyssenKrupp Stainless USA contracted with F.L. Industries Inc. to build cold rolling mills at ThyssenKrupp’s steel plant in Alabama. The contracts between ThyssenKrupp and F.L. contained arbitration clauses. F.L. subcontracted with GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS Corp. for motors for the mills. After GE Energy delivered the motors, Outokumpu Stainless USA acquired the plant from ThyssenKrupp. Shortly thereafter, the motors allegedly failed. Outokumpu sued GE Energy, which sought to compel arbitration under the arbitration clauses in the ThyssenKrupp-F.L. contracts.

The district court granted GE Energy’s motion. It concluded that the ThyssenKrupp-F.L. contracts included subcontractors within the definition of the terms “seller” and “parties” and that Outokumpu and GE Energy were therefore parties to the ThyssenKrupp-F.L. contracts. The court therefore declined to reach GE Energy’s alternate argument that the arbitration clauses were enforceable under equitable estoppel principles even if the litigants were not parties.

The Eleventh Circuit reversed. It concluded, in relevant part, that the Convention required parties to sign arbitration agreements, that GE Energy had indisputably not signed the ThyssenKrupp-F.L. contracts, and that GE Energy could therefore not rely on equitable estoppel because that doctrine conflicted with the Convention’s signatory requirement.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split and held that equitable estoppel doctrines can allow non-signatories to compel arbitration under the Convention.

The court explained that chapter 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) “permits a nonsignatory to rely on state-law equitable estoppel doctrines to enforce an arbitration agreement” and that the Convention in turn provided that chapter 1 of the FAA applies to proceedings brought pursuant to the Convention’s implementing legislation “to the extent that [chapter 1] is not in conflict with [the implementing legislation] or the Convention.” Thus, the court needed to determine whether applying equitable estoppel principles conflicted with the Convention.

The court concluded it did not. It explained that the Convention was “silent” on the issue and that that “silence [was] dispositive … because nothing in the text of the Convention could be read to otherwise prohibit the application of domestic equitable estoppel doctrines.”

The court also explained that the relevant section of the Convention did not contain exclusionary language stating that arbitration agreements could only be enforced in the circumstances identified. In addition, the Convention “contemplate[s] the use of domestic doctrines to fill gaps in the Convention,” its drafting history supported the conclusion that domestic law could apply, and a majority of the courts of other signatory countries to analyze the issue had concluded that the Convention “does not prohibit the application of domestic law.”

The Supreme Court, therefore, remanded the case to the Eleventh Circuit to consider the merits of GE Energy’s equitable estoppel argument.

GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, No. 18-1048 (U.S. June 1, 2020).