Arbitration Process Issues

UNDER FAA, CHICAGO COURT REFUSES TO DETERMINE WHETHER CLAIMS SHOULD BE PART OF PENDING NEW YORK ARBITRATION

October 15, 2014 by Carlton Fields

A dispute involving competing actions between two competing aeroponic farming companies, FarmedHere, LLC and Just Greens, LLC (doing business as Aero Farm Systems), was simultaneously at issue in a New York arbitration, a New York state court, and a Chicago federal court. Aero Farm had originally demanded arbitration in New York based on an arbitration clause in a distribution agreement between Aero Farm and a company affiliated with FarmedHere. In response, FarmedHere filed a petition to stay the arbitration in the New York court, contending that it was not a party to the distribution agreement, and a separate case in Chicago alleging unfair trade practices and seeking a declaration regarding certain patented aeroponic farming technology. Aero Farm then moved to dismiss the Chicago action, contending that (1) FarmedHere assumed obligations under the distribution agreement, (2) FarmedHere’s claims were therefore subject to the arbitration clause, and (3) the proper jurisdiction under the FAA to determine arbitrability was New York (where the arbitration was pending), and not Chicago. After a review of the evidence, the court agreed with Aero Farm and dismissed the Chicago proceedings without prejudice. FarmedHere can attempt to refile its claims in Chicago if the New York court determines that FarmedHere’s claims are not arbitrable. FarmedHere, LLC v. Jut Greens, LLC, Case No. 14 C 370 (USDC N.D. Ill. June 16, 2014).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

DISTRICT COURT APPLIES NEW YORK CONVENTION, DENIES MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

October 14, 2014 by Carlton Fields

In late July, a New York federal court denied Harris Corporation’s (“Harris”) motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The motion sought to dismiss HBC Solutions Inc.’s (“HBC”) Amended Petition to Compel Arbitration. The dispute centered on a memorialized Asset Sale Agreement (“Sale Agreement”) in which HBC agreed to purchase Harris’s Broadcast Communications Division. The Sale Agreement stated that the final purchase price would be determined after closing with resolution of any pricing dispute handled through an independent accountancy to determine the “adjustment amount.” Harris did not contact the accountancy firm for resolution.

Without a federal question and without diversity of citizenship between the parties, the court looked to whether it had jurisdiction under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“The New York Convention”) and its codification in the Federal Arbitration Act. Harris argued first that the New York Convention should not apply, as the parties were both domestic. Second, Harris argued that the additional provision in the Sale Agreement was not arbitration but an “expert determination.” Considering Harris’s first argument, the Court noted that the New York Convention would typically not apply if both parties were citizens of the United States. However, the sale included a transfer of property in fourteen different countries, making the transaction “significantly international.” Further, the Court reasoned that the language in the Sale Agreement was evidence of a desire to adjudicate any pricing dispute through a third party, here an accountancy. As the New York Convention applies, the motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction was denied.

The Court concluded that the contract’s clearly stated intention to refer disputes to an accountant for resolution qualified as an agreement to arbitrate, and directed the respondent to serve an opposition to the Amended Petition. Given that some reinsurance agreements provide for somewhat similar alternative dispute resolution avenues, this opinion may be of interest to reinsurance practitioners. HBC Solutions, Inc., v. Harris Corp., No. 13-CV-6327 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. July 18th, 2014).

This post written by Matthew Burrows.

See our disclaimer.

FEDERAL COURT REMANDS ACTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD: NO SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

October 9, 2014 by Carlton Fields

A federal court in California recently rejected efforts to remove a state court arbitration confirmation proceeding to federal court. The underlying royalties dispute had been addressed in an arbitration, and ultimately the dispute arrived in California state court in a proceeding to confirm the arbitration award. The defendant opposed the petition for confirmation and filed a separate petition to vacate or modify the award. That pleading included a count for “Declaratory Judgment for No Liability under Federal Patent Laws.” Based on the assertion of federal relief in its own petition, the defendant filed a notice of removal. The federal court rejected the defendant’s assertion of jurisdiction and remanded the case back to state court. The court concluded that there was no subject matter jurisdiction — despite the patent-related request for relief — due to the limited nature of the proceedings before the state court. The court determined that the declaratory judgment count did not belong in the state court action in the first place, and it ruled that issues of patent law need not be decided to resolve the limited issues presented in the case. In sum, the court refused to allow the defendant “to create jurisdiction where none can possibly exist in order to bring a properly-situated case before a new forum.”

Amkor Tech., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., 5:14-CV-03604 EJD, 2014 WL 4467715 (USDC N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2014).

This post written by Catherine Acree.

See our disclaimer.

NEW YORK FEDERAL COURT ALLOWS ATTORNEY DISQUALIFICATION CLAIM TO PROCEED

October 6, 2014 by Carlton Fields

A New York federal court recently denied a motion to dismiss a claim filed by two reinsurers, Employers Insurance Company of Wausau and National Casualty Company. The claim sought a declaration disqualifying Hunton & Williams as counsel for their reinsured, Utica Mutual Insurance Company, in a subsequent arbitration dispute concerning the reinsurers’ obligations for the amounts paid in an underlying settlement. Hunton & Williams had represented Utica in negotiating the underlying settlement and in litigating coverage issues against Utica’s insured. The reinsurers argued that, in the underlying litigation, Utica had a “common interest” with its reinsurers to minimize the liability to Utica’s insured; therefore, the Hunton & Williams attorneys, in effect, represented the reinsurers’ interests in the underlying litigation. The reinsurers argued that the rules of professional conduct prohibit the attorneys from representing Utica in the subsequent arbitration because such representation was adverse to them. The district court concluded that the reinsurers had stated a valid claim to disqualify the attorneys based on the rules governing concurrent and successive representation, noting that even if the reinsurers were not the clients of Hunton & Williams in the “traditional sense,” an inquiry into the potential conflict was still warranted. The court also found that the reinsurers had plausibly alleged that the “witness-advocate” rule may apply in the case because the attorneys may be called as witnesses in the arbitration proceeding to testify concerning the reasonableness of the underlying settlement.

Utica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Employers ins. Co. of Wausau and Nat’l Cas. Co., No. 6:12-CV-1293 (USDC N.D. N.Y. Sep. 22, 2014).

This post written by Catherine Acree.

See our disclaimer.

ARBITRATION CLAUSE FOUND UNENFORCEABLE IN SERVICE CONTRACT ACTION

October 2, 2014 by Carlton Fields

Reversing the lower court, the Supreme Court of New Jersey found an arbitration provision in a service contract was unenforceable because it failed to notify the consumer clearly and unambiguously that, by entering into the agreement, the consumer was waiving the right to seek relief in a court of law. In this case, the arbitration clause stated that either party may submit any dispute “to binding arbitration”; that “the parties shall agree on a single arbitrator to resolve the dispute”; and that the arbitrator’s decision “shall be final and may be entered into judgment in any court of competent jurisdiction.” Basing its decision on the principle that an effective waiver requires a party to have full knowledge of his legal rights and intent to surrender those rights, the court found that the arbitration provision at issue failed to explain that the plaintiff was waiving her right to seek relief in court, what arbitration is, or how arbitration is different from a proceeding in a court of law. Patricia Atalese v. U.S. Legal Services Group, A-64-12 (072314) (N.J. Sept. 23, 2014).

This post written by Leonor Lagomasino.

See our disclaimer.