Arbitration Process Issues

This litigation involved 21 parties spread across six different arbitrations in front of six different arbitrators. The litigation arose out of a dispute between two doctors, their business entities, and captive insurers (the plaintiffs), and a lawyer, law firm, and its affiliates (the defendants). The doctors engaged the defendants to create captive insurers and tax shelters for the doctors. After the U.S. Tax Court issued a ruling with negative consequences for the shelters, the doctors asked the defendants to “liquidate and wind down” the doctors’ program, but the defendants refused.

The Arbitrations

Both sides sought arbitration: the defendants brought the first arbitration in Houston, Texas, before Judge Dorfman, and the plaintiffs brought the second arbitration in Louisiana before Judge Duval. The plaintiffs also commenced a lawsuit against the defendants in Texas state court, alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, tort, legal malpractice, and breach of professional obligations, which was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, in which the defendants moved to compel the doctors’ business entities’ participation in the Texas arbitration. The plaintiffs responded with a cross-motion to compel the defendants to join in the Louisiana arbitration and to challenge the Texas arbitration, while also seeking a stay of the Texas arbitration pending a ruling on the motions. The defendants then initiated a third arbitration before Judge Baker in Houston Texas, asserting additional claims that the defendants were denied leave to supplement their arbitration demand in the first arbitration.

The district court granted the defendants’ motion to compel and ordered the parties to arbitrate two of their disputes before Judge Dorfman and Judge Baker in Houston, relying on a written arbitration agreement between the parties that required all arbitrations to be conducted in Houston. The district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration in Louisiana and stayed the arbitration pending before Judge Duval and the related proceedings in the federal litigation so that the Texas arbitration could go forward. The plaintiffs appealed the district court’s decision to stay the litigation.

While the district court was making its decision to stay the litigation, the plaintiffs filed a fourth arbitration before arbitrator Robert Kutcher in Louisiana. The plaintiffs thereafter filed a fifth arbitration, based on allegedly newly discovered facts, before Judge Medley in Louisiana, and a sixth arbitration before Judge Gill-Jefferson in Louisiana, but the plaintiffs requested that the new arbitrations be held in Houston.

Defendants’ Emergency Motion to Lift the Stay

After the district court issued its decision to stay the litigation, the defendants filed an emergency motion asking the district court to lift its stay and enjoin the fourth, fifth, and sixth arbitrations, arguing that these Louisiana arbitrations were proceeding in an improper venue and were inefficient “copycat” arbitrations seeking to resolve the same “core dispute” at issue in the Judge Baker and Judge Dorfman arbitrations in Texas.

The district court found no appropriate circumstances justifying an order lifting the stay in the case or staying the recently filed fourth, fifth, and sixth arbitrations. The district court recognized the interesting procedural questions that arose with respect to whether only the final hearing, or also interim hearings, must occur in Houston — as the arbitrators in these later-filed arbitrations were hearing disputes virtually via Zoom and some had issued interim decisions from Louisiana, but none had required the parties to travel to Louisiana. The district court also rejected the defendants’ argument that the fourth, fifth, and sixth arbitrations were inefficient “copycat” arbitrations, noting that the arbitration agreement did not preclude the parties from proceeding with separate arbitrations for disputes involving overlapping but different facts.

However, the district court concluded that while the more recently filed arbitrations must “proceed” in Houston under the arbitration agreement, the required location for interim hearings, the manner in which arbitrators must appear in a location, and permissible consolidation procedures are disputes about procedural questions that are best left for the arbitrators to address, not the court.

Defendants’ Motion to Confirm the Final Award

After the emergency motion was filed, Judge Dorfman issued a final award in the first arbitration, finding that the defendants were not required to immediately wind down and liquidate the captive insurers. The defendants moved to confirm that award before the district court.

The plaintiffs argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to lift the stay it imposed in the litigation and confirm the award by Judge Dorfman because the plaintiffs were appealing the district court’s decision allowing arbitration before Judge Dorfman. Rejecting the plaintiffs’ argument that it lacked jurisdiction to lift the stay, the district court noted that this case involved several arbitrations that were not implicated by the plaintiffs’ appeal, and thus it had jurisdiction to lift the stay to address issues in arbitration proceedings not implicated by the plaintiffs’ appeal.

The district court, however, agreed with the plaintiffs that their appeal targeted Judge Dorfman’s appointment and his ability to preside over the parties’ arbitration. Because the defendants were asking the district court to confirm an award Judge Dorfman granted, which would require the district court to decide that Judge Dorfman had the power to grant an arbitration award, the district court recognized that such a decision may conflict with a decision of the appellate court. The district court therefore declined to exercise jurisdiction over issues currently on appeal.

The district court explained that these proceedings were “inefficient and messy” when it compelled arbitration back in August 2020, but since “the parties applied their contract to make this mess but agreed that arbitration would resolve their disputes, no matter how messy,” the district court was not going to “step in to clean it up and risk making it worse.” The district court simply refused to interfere.

Sullivan v. Feldman, No. 4:20-cv-02236 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2020).

A federal court recently refused to compel arbitration after it concluded that there had been no refusal to arbitrate. The court also refused to appoint arbitrators for the parties.

Linda L. Allen claimed Horter Investment Management, LLC’s “representatives sold fraudulent and unregistered investments.” She claimed those claims were subject to arbitration pursuant to a clause in a client agreement that provided that “[c]lient and [a]dvisor both agree that all controversies which may arise between them concerning any transaction or construction, performance or breach of this agreement that cannot be settled, be submitted to binding arbitration.”

Allen and her fellow plaintiffs moved to compel arbitration or, in the alternative, for the appointment of arbitrators. Horter responded that the plaintiffs lacked standing because it had not refused to arbitrate and was participating in the selection of arbitrators.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Western Division) agreed with Horter. Although the plaintiffs “initiated arbitration with the AAA, but the AAA declined to administer the clams because of [Horter’s] past actions,” the court did “not find that [Horter’s] acts amount to an unequivocal refusal to arbitrate. Instead, Defendant has expressly acknowledged the agreement to arbitrate. The parties have been working together in the Bruns case and this case to reach an agreement regarding the selection of arbitrators. The Court notes that some of the delay in this process is attributable to Plaintiffs’ change in position regarding consolidated arbitration.” The court also declined to appoint arbitrators because “[b]oth parties are amenable to private arbitration and the names of specific arbitrators have been exchanged.”

Linda L. Allen, et al. v. Horter Investment Management, LLC (S.D. Oh. Sept. 30 2020).

A court recently granted a temporary restraining order enjoining a FINRA arbitration from proceeding after the court concluded that there was a serious question regarding arbitrability.

Barry Horowitz, an estate planning attorney who had a relationship with Lincoln Financial Securities Corporation, allegedly referred some clients to Thomas D. Renison, an insurance agent.

Renison was charged with federal crimes (though those charges were later dropped). Renison nevertheless was barred from the securities industry. Horowitz ultimately terminated his relationship with Renison as a result of these alleged improprieties.

Several of Horowitz’s clients whom he had referred to Renison claimed that Horowitz and Lincoln Financial were liable for damages caused by Renison’s alleged fraud.

The clients sought to arbitrate the dispute under FINRA’s arbitration rules. Horowitz and Lincoln Financial sought to stay those proceedings, but when those requests were denied, filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that the clients did not have a right to compel arbitration because there was no written arbitration agreement between the parties, and FINRA did not apply. Horowitz and Lincoln Financial sought a temporary restraining order enjoining the FINRA arbitration from proceeding until a court could rule on the question of arbitrability.

The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted the temporary restraining order requested by Horowitz and Lincoln Financial. The court noted that, under Second Circuit precedent, Horowitz and Lincoln Financial would be irreparably harmed if they were forced to expend time and resources arbitrating an issue that was not arbitrable. The court also concluded that Horowitz and Lincoln Financial had raised a serious question as to whether FINRA applied because there was an open question as to whether the clients were their “customers” within the meaning of FINRA Rule 12200. Finally, the court found that the hardships tipped decidedly in favor of Horowitz and Lincoln Financial because a temporary restraining order maintained the status quo, and because arbitrability rested on a binary legal question.

Lincoln Fin. Sec. Corp. v. Foster et al., No. 3:20-cv-01132-VLB (D. Conn. Oct. 20, 2020).

In a case where both the plaintiffs and the defendant agreed the matter should be arbitrated, the Southern District of Ohio refused to compel arbitration and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for the appointment of arbitrators. The parties’ contract provided for arbitration before the American Arbitration Association, but the AAA declined to administer the arbitration because the defendant “failed to comply with the AAA’s policies regarding consumer claims.” Both parties were amenable to private arbitrations, but they could not agree whether the arbitration should be conducted individually or as one consolidated arbitration. As a result, the plaintiffs argued that the parties had reached an impasse and requested that the court either compel arbitration or appoint arbitrators.

The court first held that a party may not seek to compel arbitration under Section 4 of the FAA “where there has been no refusal to arbitrate.” “A party has ‘refused to arbitrate’ within the meaning of Section 4 if it commences litigation or is ordered to arbitrate the dispute by the relevant arbitral authority and it fails to do so.” The court denied the motion to compel arbitration under Section 4 because it found that the defendant had not unequivocally refused to arbitrate. Rather, the defendant expressly acknowledged the agreement to arbitrate, and the parties were working together to select arbitrators, but had so far failed to agree. Although the parties had not been able to agree on arbitrators for more than a year, the court found that some of this delay was attributable to the plaintiffs’ change in position regarding consolidated arbitration.

With regard to the plaintiffs’ motion for appointment of arbitrators, the court noted that the FAA “expressly favors the selection of arbitrators by parties rather than courts[, however,] Congress recognized that judicial intervention may be required in certain circumstances.” Section 5 of the FAA provides for the appointment of arbitrators “if for any [ ] reason there shall be a lapse in the naming of an arbitrator.” For purposes of Section 5, a “lapse” has been defined as “a lapse in time in the naming of the arbitrator … or some other mechanical breakdown in the arbitrator selection process.” Several courts have found such a “lapse” to have occurred where the parties have deadlocked with regard to the appointment of arbitrators or the process pursuant to which the appointments should be made. Here, despite the one-year delay, the court found that no deadlock had occurred, as the parties both agreed that they were amenable to private arbitration and the names of specific arbitrators had been exchanged. In addition, the AAA had informed the parties that it would consider accepting the arbitration if the defendant took certain steps.

As a result, the court found that it lacked jurisdiction under Section 4 to compel arbitration and under Section 5 to appoint arbitrators, and dismissed the action without prejudice.

Allen v. Horter Investment Management, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-11 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2020).

The Fourth Circuit recently vacated and remanded an order denying a motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration after concluding that the district court erroneously failed to consider evidence beyond the pleadings because the motion to stay was part of a motion to dismiss.

Brenda C. Noe sued City National Bank of West Virginia on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated plaintiffs claiming that the bank’s fee practices violated contractual provisions and the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, among other things.

The bank filed a motion to dismiss and, in the alternative, moved to stay the action pending referral to arbitration. The district court found it possible that a subsequent agreement altered Noe’s original agreement with the bank such that an agreement to arbitrate was eliminated. The district court then “refused to consider the bank’s evidence calling that elimination into question because the court believed the question was unfit for resolution on a motion to dismiss.”

The bank appealed and the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded. After determining that it had jurisdiction over the appeal (the circuit court concluded that the bank’s alternative request to stay the case pending arbitration “equated to a motion seeking enforcement of a purported arbitration agreement,” the denial of which conferred appellate jurisdiction), the court concluded “that the district court should have treated the bank’s motion as a motion to stay the litigation and compel arbitration” and that, had the district court done so, it could have considered the bank’s evidence and held a hearing to consider any unresolved questions of fact regarding arbitration.

The Fourth Circuit therefore vacated the district court’s decision denying the bank’s alternative motion to stay and remanded for a determination as to whether the case should be referred to arbitration and, if necessary, a hearing to resolve any related questions of material fact.

Brenda C. Noe v. City National Bank of West Virginia, No. 20-1230 (4h Cir. Sept. 17, 2020)