Michael Wolgin

NINTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMS ORDER REJECTING FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGE TO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

January 23, 2018 by Michael Wolgin

Consumers filed a putative class action alleging statutory and common law consumer protection and false advertising claims under California and Alabama law, specifically alleging that AT&T falsely advertised their mobile service plans as “unlimited” when in fact it intentionally slowed data at certain usage levels. AT&T moved to compel arbitration pursuant the arbitration agreements included in their wireless data service plans and in light of the Supreme Court’s 2011 ruling in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, which held that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state law deeming AT&T’s arbitration provision to be unconscionable.

Plaintiffs opposed the motion on First Amendment grounds, arguing that an order forcing arbitration would violate the Petition Clause because they “did not knowingly and voluntarily give up their right to have a court adjudicate their claims” and could not “bring their claims in small claims court.” The district court granted AT&T’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was no state action in this case to bring the dispute within the ambit of the First Amendment. After denying reconsideration, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion to certify the order compelling arbitration for immediate interlocutory appeal, finding that there was substantial ground for difference of opinion as to whether state action existed under (1) Denver Area Edu. Telecom. Consortium, Inc. v. FCC or (2) the “encouragement” test. The Ninth Circuit granted permission to appeal.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit read Denver Area narrowly, reasoning that the case “did not broadly rule that the government is the relevant state actor whenever there is a direct constitutional challenge to a “permissive” statute. The court also found unpersuasive plaintiffs’ argument that the Federal Arbitration Act, including judicial interpretations thereof, “encourages” arbitration such that AT&T’s actions are attributable to the state. The panel concluded, “[p]ermission of a private choice cannot support a finding of state action,” and “private parties [do not] face constitutional litigation whenever they seek to rely on some [statute] governing their interactions with the community surrounding them.” The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. Roberts v. AT&T Mobility, Case No. 16-16915 (9th Cir. Dec. 11, 2017).

This post written by Gail Jankowski.

See our disclaimer.

THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT DOES NOT GRANT ARBITRATORS THE POWER TO COMPEL PRE-HEARING PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM NON-PARTIES

January 22, 2018 by Michael Wolgin

While the FAA grants arbitrators authority to compel non-parties to appear before them and produce documents at a hearing, it does not authorize them to compel pre-hearing production. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals joined the Second, Third and Fourth Circuits in so holding. The Eighth Circuit, however, disagrees, having ruled previously that “implicit in an arbitration panel’s power to subpoena relevant documents for production at a hearing is the power to order the production of relevant documents for review by a party prior to the hearing.” It is also worth noting, as the Ninth Circuit did, that “because arbitration is a creation of contract, arbitration agreements may provide arbitrators greater discovery powers with respect to the parties bound by such agreements.” CVS Health Corp. v. Vividus, LLC, Case No. 16-16187 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2017).

This post written by Benjamin E. Stearns.

See our disclaimer.

INSURER’S ATTEMPT TO SHIELD DOCUMENTS FROM DISCOVERY THROUGH ASSERTION OF THE MEDIATION PRIVILEGE AND A RELEVANCY OBJECTION IS UNAVAILING

January 5, 2018 by Michael Wolgin

In a breach of contract and bad faith case emanating from an insurer’s refusal to settle an underlying case within policy limits, the insurer was unsuccessful in its attempt to protect documents from discovery by assertion of a “mediation privilege” and another set of documents related to reinsurance information via a relevancy objection. The court ruled that the documents did not qualify as “mediation documents” because the insurer was not a party to the underlying litigation, which was a “requirement under the plain meaning of the definition of ‘mediation document.’” The documents also did not qualify as “mediation communications” because they involved statements “made by a person present at the mediation outside the mediation session.” As such, in order to qualify, the communications must have either been made by the mediator, or to the mediator. They were not. Another set of documents containing statements “which were made by a person who may have been present at the mediation session to someone (not the mediator) outside the mediation session” also did not qualify for protection.

With regard to the reinsurance documents, the court stated that there is “no absolute exclusion of reinsurance information.” Rather, discovery of such information may be allowed in the context of claims for bad faith involving an insurer’s failure to settle in order to “equalize the knowledge of both parties and give the plaintiff ‘assurance that there can be recovery in the event of a favorable verdict to justify the time, effort and expense of preparing for trial.’” The fact that such information may be discoverable, however, does not guarantee that it will be admissible at trial.

Subsequent to the ruling described above, the court denied a motion for reconsideration, finding that it had not committed an error of law. The court “reiterate[d] that it considers the mediation privilege a very important privilege in jurisprudence; however, for the Court to stretch the mediation privilege beyond its plain meaning and ambit of protection, in fact, would undercut the privilege itself and exceed this Court’s power and authority.” Golon, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of the Southeast, Case No. 17-cv-0819 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 7, 2017 and Dec. 14, 2017).

This post written by Benjamin E. Stearns.
See our disclaimer.

NINTH CIRCUIT: UNCONSCIONABILITY ARGUMENTS DIRECTED SOLELY AT CLASS ACTION WAIVER PROVISIONS IN ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS ARE FORECLOSED BY CONCEPCION

January 4, 2018 by Michael Wolgin

Utilizing a “sweeping reading of Concepcion,” as characterized by the concurring opinion, the Ninth Circuit has ruled that arguments that “a class action waiver, by itself, is unconscionable under state law or that an arbitration agreement is unconscionable solely because it contains a class action waiver” are expressly foreclosed by AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011). The plaintiff did not challenge the district court’s decision to compel arbitration, but rather the decision to compel arbitration on an individual basis, arguing that the relevant agreement’s class action waiver provision was unconscionable under Nevada law.

The majority stated that, while Concepcion foreclosed the plaintiff’s unconscionability argument because it was directed only at the class action waiver provision, Concepcion “does not foreclose application of state unconscionability doctrines to arbitration agreements generally.” Were the plaintiff to contend that “the entire arbitration agreement – or any aspect of it other than the class action waiver – is unconscionable,” then his argument would be viable. However, such was not the case here. Carter v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., Case No. 16-15835 (9th Cir. Dec. 12, 2017).

This post written by Benjamin E. Stearns.
See our disclaimer.

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FINDS NO MANIFEST DISREGARD OF THE LAW AND UPHOLDS ORDER CONFIRMING ARBITRATION AWARD IN LICENSING DISPUTE

January 3, 2018 by Michael Wolgin

The case involved a dispute between the owner of the Cabbage Patch Kids brand and related intellectual property (“CPK”), and licensee JAKKS Pacific, Inc., which had an exclusive license to use the brand and intellectual property between 2012 and 2014. Prior to the end of the license agreement, CPK selected a new licensee, Wicked Cool Toys, to manufacture and sell Cabbage Patch Kids dolls and products beginning in 2015. To that end, CPK and Wicked Cool Toys entered into a deal memorandum on May 30, 2014 whereby CPK permitted Wicked Cool Toys to immediately begin the process of creating and promoting a new line of dolls. Shortly thereafter, JAKKS asserted that CPK had breached its exclusive license and stopped paying royalties due under the agreement. CPK responded by filing suit in a federal court in Georgia seeking an order compelling arbitration and confirmation of any arbitration award.

At issue during arbitration was the meaning of a provision in the license agreement reserving to CPK the right to “engage, during the 365-day period prior to the termination or expiration of [the agreements], in the negotiation, with potential licensees (including competitors of Licensee), of one or more license agreements granting licenses with respect to” the products covered by JAKKS’s exclusive license, “to become effective upon the expiration or earlier termination of [the agreements].” JAKKS argued that, under that provision, CPK could only “negotiate” with potential licensees in 2014, and was prohibited from actually reaching an agreement with a new licensee or doing anything else to make it possible for a new licensee to actually launch a new line of Cabbage Patch Kids products in 2015. The arbitrator concluded that this provision, particularly the word “negotiate,” was ambiguous in light of the circumstances, and that “it was the intention of the parties” that CPK and Wicked Cool Toys “could do what they did in order to transition into the manufacture and launch in 2015 of a new seasonal line of [Cabbage Patch Kids] products, without the de facto creation of a ‘gap’ of about one year.” The arbitrator therefore awarded CPK the royalties withheld by JAKKS and the court confirmed the award.

On appeal, JAKKS moved to vacate the award and argued under both Georgia law and the FAA that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law and exceeded his authority. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed and affirmed the district court’s confirmation of the award. The court found that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law by considering the commercial context of the relevant market when determining whether the license agreement provision allowing CPK to engage in the negotiation of a new license agreement in 2014 was ambiguous. In addition, the court held that because “the subject of the arbitration proceeding was the parties’ dispute about the construction, meaning, or enforceability of certain terms” of the license agreement, the arbitrator did not overstep his authority by deciding the meaning of the provision at issue. The court also rejected JAKKS’ argument that the arbitrator violated the FAA and held that the arbitrator was interpreting, rather than modifying, the relevant provision because it was ambiguous on its face. Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v. Jakks Pacific, Inc., Case No. 17-11513 (11th Cir. Nov. 17, 2017).

This post written by Gail Jankowski.
See our disclaimer.