Brendan Gooley

Tenth Circuit Refuses to Vacate FINRA Arbitration Dismissal

August 18, 2020 by Brendan Gooley

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently rejected a claimant’s effort to vacate the dismissal of his FINRA claim following his repeated failure to comply with various deadlines.

Zane Piston initiated a FINRA arbitration against his former employer, Transamerica Capital Inc., claiming that Transamerica Capital incorrectly described the reason for his termination.

The arbitration panel issued a scheduling order. Piston’s attorney failed to make various filings in accordance with the scheduling order and timely respond to motions filed by Transamerica Capital.

Transamerica Capital eventually moved to have Piston’s claim dismissed with prejudice due to these failures. The arbitration panel held a hearing at which it required Piston to show good cause as to why his claim should not be dismissed. Piston’s counsel indicated that he had undergone surgery, been traveling in Europe, and that his wife had been hospitalized and that he had therefore been unable to make timely filings. The panel concluded that Piston’s counsel had not shown good cause for his various failings and dismissed Piston’s claim with prejudice as a sanction.

Piston moved to vacate that decision. The district court denied Piston’s motion, and Piston appealed to the Tenth Circuit. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Piston’s motion to vacate the dismissal of his claim. Piston primarily claimed that the arbitration panel exceeded its powers, disregarded the law, committed misconduct, and denied him a fair hearing because it allegedly dismissed his claim without a warning. The court rejected that claim. It concluded that the panel arguably interpreted and applied FINRA Rule 13212(c), which allows FINRA panels to dismiss a claim with prejudice as a sanction for material and intentional failure to comply with an order of the panel if prior warnings or sanctions proved ineffective. Whether the panel properly interpreted Rule 13212(c) was beyond the scope of the court’s review. The Tenth Circuit also rejected Piston’s claim that the panel misapplied the good cause standard, noting that Piston had to do more than show that the panel committed an error.

Piston v. Transamerica Capital, Inc., No. 19-1123 (10th Cir. July 21, 2020).

Third Circuit Concludes Arbitration Agreement Is Unenforceable Under the Prospective Waiver Doctrine

July 30, 2020 by Brendan Gooley

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to enforce an arbitration agreement because it impermissibly limited claims to those available under tribal law at the expense of federal statutory claims. The court also concluded that the relevant clause could not be severed from the agreement.

Christina Williams and Michael Stermel entered into payday loan agreements that provided that they were subject to and governed by tribal law. The agreements also “limit[ed] disputes to tribal laws and to tribal courts.” The agreements also contained arbitration agreements.

Williams and Stermel sued in federal court on behalf of a putative class for violations of federal and Pennsylvania law, claiming that the agreements charged unlawfully high interest rates. The defendants moved to compel arbitration. The district court denied the defendants’ motion.

The Third Circuit affirmed. It explained “that arbitration is only appropriate so long as the prospective litigant effectively may vindicate his or her statutory cause of action in the arbitral forum” and that “arbitration agreements that limit a party’s substantive claims to those under tribal law, and hence forbid federal claims from being brought, are unenforceable.”

Applying those principles to Williams’ and Stermel’s claims, the court evaluated the loan agreements and concluded that they impermissibly limited claims to tribal law claims. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the agreements were proper because they allowed borrowers to make claims under “such federal law as is applicable under the Indian Commerce Clause.” The court read the contract differently, as only allowing claims under tribal law, and also concluded that the restriction to the Indian Commerce Clause was improper because it precluded claims under other federal provisions, including a RICO claim asserted by the plaintiffs.

The Third Circuit also concluded that a severability clause did not save the balance of the arbitration agreement “because the prohibited waiver here [was] not severable.” The court concluded that clauses limiting claims to those available under tribal law was an essential term of the contract and that “the arbitration agreement’s clear reference to the exclusive application of tribal law is intertwined with the arbitration process and is central to it.” The court could not enforce arbitration without impermissibly rewriting the contract.

Williams v. Medley Opportunity Fund II, LP, No. 19-2058 (3d Cir. July 14, 2020).

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).