Michael Wolgin

Ninth Circuit Affirms Order Denying Arbitration, Applying Precedent That State Law Does Not Overcome the New York Convention’s Signatory Requirement to Compel Arbitration

July 3, 2019 by Michael Wolgin

In a trademark dispute, Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP (SS LLP), an incense manufacturing company based in Mumbai, appealed the denial of its motion to compel arbitration against Balkrishna Setty and his company Shrinivas Sugandhalaya (BNG) LLP, located in Bangalore. SS LLP sought to compel arbitration under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (also known as the New York Convention), by invoking the arbitration clause in a partnership agreement to which SS LLP was not a signatory. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of arbitration, relying on the requirement under the New York Convention that the party seeking to compel arbitration be a party to the arbitration agreement. The court explained that to the extent the FAA would permit a nonsignatory to invoke arbitration through certain state contract or equitable laws, the Convention’s bar of arbitration would control over the FAA. The court also rejected other arguments of SS LLP, finding that they were not raised before the district court.

Setty v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP, No. 18-35573 (9th Cir. June 6, 2019).

Court Finds Panel Did Not Manifestly Disregard Law When It Entered FINRA Award in Favor of Investment Firm and Advisors in Dispute over Fraud Committed by Late NFL Player’s Agent

June 13, 2019 by Michael Wolgin

The widow of a former NFL football player sued the player’s sports agent and financial adviser, alleging that the former player was defrauded by the agent in connection with the loss of the proceeds of the player’s life insurance policy. The plaintiff alleged that upon the player’s death, the insurance proceeds were paid to a trust, for which the agent acted as trustee without authorization. The funds were depleted by the agent, and the plaintiff asserted claims of breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and fraud against the agent and the agent’s investment firm and financial advisors.

The matter went to FINRA arbitration, and the panel concluded that the investment firm and the financial advisors were not legally responsible for the harm. The plaintiff moved to vacate the award on the ground that the panel manifestly disregarded the law when it reached the conclusion that “the Investment Firm and Investment Advisors were not required to conduct any investigation into the obviously suspicious and fraudulent behavior.” The firm and advisors moved to confirm the award, arguing that the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the award was untimely beyond the three-month limitation period. They relied upon the early issuance of the award, which contained two out of three signatures of the panel. The plaintiff relied upon a later date on which the third signature on the award was issued.

The court avoided ruling on the issue of timeliness, noting that some case law did support raising grounds for vacatur as a defense to a motion to confirm, even after the limitations period has expired. Turning to whether the panel manifestly disregarded the law, the court explained that, assuming “manifest disregard” is even a valid ground for vacatur in the Fifth Circuit, the panel did not disregard the existence of a clearly governing legal principle. The panel determined that “the Trustee of the trust was the person solely responsible for the asset destruction of the trust” and that the plaintiff failed to present any breach of a fiduciary duty “under any law or regulation.” The court concluded that “the Panel considered the existence of governing law, but found that a fiduciary duty did not exist under this law. Plaintiff’s issue with the arbitration decision is not that the Panel ignored the law entirely, but that the Panel did not reach Plaintiff’s desired outcome when applying the law. Therefore, even under the ‘manifest disregard of the law’ standard, Plaintiff’s motion for vacatur fails.” The court therefore denied the motion to vacate and confirmed the award.

Warren v. Geller, No. 2:11-cv-02282 (E.D. La. May 3, 2019).

Court Finds Arbitration Panel Did Not Exceed Powers or Manifestly Disregard the Law in Confirming Award in Dispute Over Leasing of Oil Lands

May 22, 2019 by Michael Wolgin

The case relates to an arbitration award entered in a dispute between affiliated oil exploration and marketing companies, on the one hand, and owners of land leased to the oil companies, on the other hand. The leases at issue authorized the exploration company to produce and sell any oil and natural gas found there. In exchange, the owners of the land would receive royalties calculated as a percentage of the proceeds attributable to the production from each well. The owners objected to the amount of the royalties paid by the exploration company, which were calculated based on the exploration company’s sales of the oil and gas to its affiliated marketing company, instead of based on the higher amounts for which the marketing company would sell the oil and gas downstream to third parties. The dispute went to an arbitration, which found that the owners failed to provide evidence that the oil sales between the affiliated companies were less than what would occur in an arms-length transaction. The panel found that the exploration company had legitimately transferred title to the oil and gas, and received sufficient consideration from the affiliated marketing company.

The owners petitioned the court to vacate the award, arguing that the arbitrators “exceeded their powers” and “effectively dispensed their own brand of industrial justice,” and that they “manifestly disregarded the law.” The court rejected both arguments, disagreeing that the arbitrators “ignored the central question” in dispute. According to the court, the panel found that (1) title was transferred to the marketing company; (2) the exploration company marketed the oil and gas as required; (3) the exploration company made “legally sufficient accounting entries on their books and records to evidence transfer of title and consideration paid for the oil and gas”; (4) the leases permitted the exploration company to sell to an affiliate; and (5) the owners failed to provide evidence of any defects with the sales transactions. The court found, without expressing any opinion about whether the panel was correct, that the panel “stayed well within its powers to adjudicate the dispute and executed those powers appropriately.” The court further found that the panel did not manifestly disregard the law. The court explained that the panel “was asked to interpret contracts that were arguably inconsistent both internally and with one another, and it made an informed, careful judgment about how to do so.” The court therefore granted summary judgment in favor of the oil companies and confirmed the award in its entirety.

Hale v. Chesapeake Expl., LLC, No. 4:18-cv-02217 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 25, 2019).

Ninth Circuit Affirms Order Compelling Class Arbitration in Employment Dispute Involving Two Employment Agreements With Varying Arbitration Provisions

May 1, 2019 by Michael Wolgin

Oracle America Inc. appealed the trial court’s order compelling class arbitration in an employment dispute in which there were two agreements at issue, one with, and one without, a class action waiver. The Ninth Circuit rejected Oracle’s arguments that the trial court should have selected the former agreement (with the class waiver) over the latter (without the class waiver). First, the court rejected Oracle’s argument that the trial court, as opposed to the arbitrator, should have decided whether there was an enforceable agreement to arbitrate. Here, the Ninth Circuit held, both contracts clearly delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Next, the Ninth Circuit was not persuaded by Oracle’s argument that the trial court should have decided which of the two agreements the arbitrator should enforce, ruling that there was no dispute that the agreement on which the arbitrator relied (the one lacking a class action waiver) was properly entered into by the parties. Finally, the Ninth Circuit rejected Oracle’s argument that the trial court should have considered Oracle’s argument that the second agreement was a novation of the first agreement. The issue of novation was not a defense to the agreement’s validity that should have been decided by the trial court; it was an issue that was to be decided by the arbitrator.

Johnson v. Oracle America, Inc., No. 17-17489 (9th Cir. Mar. 21, 2019).

California Appellate Court Holds U.S. Supreme Court’s Epic Systems Ruling Does Not Authorize Waiver of Class Relief or Arbitration of PAGA Claims Absent Consent From California

April 10, 2019 by Michael Wolgin

Former employees sued their former employer, alleging wage and hour violations and seeking civil penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). In response, the employer petitioned for arbitration under the parties’ arbitration agreement. The agreement provided that arbitration shall be the exclusive forum for any dispute and prohibited employees from bringing a “representative action.”

The trial court granted the arbitration petition on all causes of action except for the PAGA claim, relying on the California Supreme Court decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles LLC, which held that agreements that waived the right to bring PAGA representative actions in any forum were unenforceable. The trial court stayed the PAGA claim pending the conclusion of the arbitration.

On appeal, the employer argued that the court erred because Iskanian is inconsistent with a recent Epic Systems decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. The appellate court rejected this argument, finding that Epic Systems did not address the scenario in Iskanian, which involved a claim under PAGA brought on behalf of the government, and the enforceability of an agreement barring a PAGA representative action in any forum. The court concluded that the trial court properly ruled that the waiver of representative claims in any forum is unenforceable. The appellate court agreed with other California court rulings that held that Iskanian’s view of a PAGA representative action — that a PAGA litigant is an agent of the state — means that this claim cannot be compelled to arbitration based on an employee’s arbitration agreement absent some evidence that the state consented to the waiver of the right to bring the PAGA claim in court. There was no such evidence in this case.

The employer also argued that the parties’ arbitration agreement should be interpreted to mean that if the representative-action waiver is unenforceable, the PAGA claim for statutory penalties remains subject to arbitration. The court rejected this argument on the basis that several California courts of appeal have held that a PAGA arbitration requirement is unenforceable based on Iskanian’s view that the state is the real party in interest in a PAGA claim for penalties.

The court also distinguished federal courts that have reached a different conclusion regarding the arbitrability of a PAGA representative claim, finding that these decisions were unpersuasive because the courts did not fully consider the implications of the qui tam nature of a PAGA claim on the enforceability of an employer-employee arbitration agreement.

Correia v. NB Baker Elec., Inc., No. D073798 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2019).