Contract Interpretation

Seventh Circuit Affirms District Court Decision Refusing To Refer Putative Class Action Under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act to Arbitration

January 18, 2023 by Kenneth Cesta

In Joshua Johnson v. Mitek Systems, Inc., the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court order denying defendant Mitek Systems, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration of the plaintiff’s claims brought under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The case before the district court involved a putative class action brought on behalf of Joshua Johnson, and all others similarly situated, in Illinois state court. Mitek removed the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. A company referred to in the decision as HyreCar “is an intermediary between people who own vehicles and other people who would like to drive for services such as Uber and GrubHub.” HyreCar verifies an applicant’s background and in so doing, sends certain personal information about the applicant to Mitek, which “provides identity-verification services.” Johnson alleges that Mitek used his information without the consent required by section 15 of BIPA.

Johnson’s contract with HyreCar included an arbitration clause which obligated Johnson to arbitrate any claims “with a long list of entities” including “all authorized or unauthorized users or beneficiaries of services or goods provided under the Agreement.” After removing the case to the district court, Mitek filed a motion to compel arbitration which was denied. Mitek then filed an immediate appeal to the Seventh Circuit pursuant to 9 U.S.C. §16(a)(1), contending that it is “a beneficiary of services or goods provided under the Agreement,” thereby requiring that the plaintiff arbitrate his claims against Mitek pursuant to the arbitration clause in the agreement he signed with HyreCar.

The Seventh Circuit rejected Mitek’s claims that the plaintiff is required to arbitrate his claims, finding that “‘the services or goods provided under the Agreement’ are vehicles, plus some ancillary aid that HyreCar furnishes to drivers.” The court further found that Mitek “does not receive ‘services or goods … under the Agreement’ between Johnson and HyreCar” and that Mitek cannot be classified as a “user” of HyreCar’s services or goods. The court noted that while courts “cannot disfavor arbitration, compared with other agreements” they may not “jigger the rules to promote arbitration” … and that “it would stretch contractual language past the breaking point” to conclude that Johnson or any of the other drivers agreed to arbitrate with Mitek. The court also rejected Mitek’s claim that the plaintiff should be equitably estopped from litigating the lawsuit, finding that the plaintiff “has not done anything that would estop himself from litigating this suit.” The court affirmed the district court’s decision refusing to refer the matter to arbitration, and remanded the case for a determination of whether the action may proceed as a class action “except for the claim under §15(c) of BIPA” which the court held must be remanded to state court.

Joshua Johnson v. Mitek Systems, Inc., No. 22-1830 (7th Cir. Dec. 21, 2022)

Supreme Court of Idaho Finds That District Court Had Jurisdiction to Determine Enforceablity of Non-Compete Provision in Employment Agreement, Which Included a Mandatory Arbitration Provision

December 14, 2022 by Kenneth Cesta

In Blaskiewicz v. Spine Institute of Idaho, P.A., after being terminated with less than one year of employment, Donald Blaskiewicz, “a highly-trained neurosurgeon” filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the state district court of Idaho to determine the enforceability of a Professional Services Agreement with his former employer, the Spine Institute of Idaho. The PSA contained a noncompete clause that “contractually proscribed Blaskiewicz from practicing medicine within fifty miles of the Spine Institute’s office (with an explicit exception for Caldwell) for a period of eighteen months, should his employment with the Spine Institute be terminated for any reason.” The PSA also included an arbitration clause, which required that “‘any dispute arising out of or related to [the PSA] be settled by arbitration in Ada County, Idaho.’”

The Spine Institute moved to dismiss, or in the alternative, to stay the proceedings, arguing that “the sole way … to challenge the noncompete provision was through arbitration and, as such, the district court was without jurisdiction to consider Blaskiewicz’s complaint.” Significantly, the Spine Institute “did not seek an order compelling arbitration, apparently because Blaskiewicz had not breached the PSA.” The district court denied the Spine Institute’s motion, concluding that it had jurisdiction over the matter. Thereafter, the district court granted Blaskiewicz’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the noncompete provision in the PSA was void as against public policy, and awarded attorney’s fees in favor of Blaskiewicz.

The Supreme Court of Idaho vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. First, the court addressed whether the appeal was moot, since the 18-month noncompete period had expired and Blaskiewicz did not accept employment during that time. The court concluded that the appeal was not moot since the district court had awarded attorney’s fees to Blaskiewicz, and “if we were to conclude the district court erred in granting summary judgment (as we do below) … this case presents a real and substantial controversy.” Second, the court held that “the district court had jurisdiction to determine whether the noncompete provision was enforceable,” and that while the Spine Institute moved to dismiss the case or stay the proceedings, they did not file a demand for arbitration and “cannot now complain that this controversy should have been arbitrated.” Third, the court found that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Blaskiewicz, concluding that “there are genuine issues of material fact such that summary judgment was inappropriate as to whether the noncompete provision was void as a matter of public policy or otherwise enforceable.” Finally, the court vacated the district court’s award of attorney’s fees since Blaskiewicz was no longer the prevailing party, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Blaskiewicz v. Spine Institute of Idaho, P.A., Docket No. 48785 (Supreme Court of Idaho, Oct. 31, 2022)

Third Circuit Reverses Judgment Enjoining Arbitration Proceeding, Remands to District Court for Further Consideration

October 28, 2022 by Kenneth Cesta

In Field Intelligence Inc. v. Xylem Dewatering Solutions Inc., the Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court’s determination that the court, not the arbitrator, was required to determine whether the parties’ first agreement, which included an arbitration agreement, was superseded by a second agreement, which did not contain an arbitration provision. However, the court then reversed the district court’s judgment, which determined that the agreement containing the arbitration provision had been superseded, and remanded the matter for further consideration of the defendant’s motion to stay the federal court litigation while arbitration is pending.

Defendant Xylem Dewatering Solutions manufactures and sells large-capacity water pumps. Xylem entered into two agreements with plaintiff Field Intelligence Inc. to develop a solution to allow Xylem customers to better monitor the water pumps. The first agreement, in 2013, was a “non-disclosure agreement” that included an arbitration provision requiring that any “dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, or the breach, termination or invalidity thereof,” be “settled by arbitration in accordance with the Rules of the American Arbitration Association.” The second agreement, in 2017, was a “software subscription service agreement” and did not include an arbitration provision, instead requiring any “action under or concerning” that agreement to be litigated in a state or federal court in New Jersey. A dispute arose between the parties and Field Intelligence filed an action in the district court for breach of the 2017 agreement. After engaging in some early discovery, Xylem then filed an arbitration demand with the AAA seeking various relief, including a determination that it did not breach the 2013 agreement. Xylem moved to stay Field Intelligence’s federal court action pending resolution of the arbitration. Field Intelligence opposed the motion to stay and cross-moved to enjoin the arbitration. The district court held it had the authority, rather than the arbitrator, to decide whether the second contract (without an arbitration provision) superseded the first, and then found the later agreement did in fact supersede the first agreement. The district court enjoined the arbitration that Xylem had filed and denied as moot Xylem’s motion to stay the federal litigation.

The Third Circuit agreed that the district court was authorized to determine whether the second contract superseded the first, holding that “the parties’ supersession dispute is for a court, not an arbitrator, to decide” and “before sending parties to an arbitrator, a court must decide whether they agreed to resolve their dispute in that forum.” However, the Third Circuit found that since there was no indication in the 2017 agreement that the parties intended to replace the 2013 agreement, “the 2013 contract’s arbitration provision is still in effect, and Xylem was entitled to arbitrate claims tied to that agreement.” The court further held that “Xylem did not waive its right to pursue arbitration for claims arising under the 2013 contract merely by engaging in this litigation.” The court then reversed the district court’s judgment enjoining the arbitration proceeding, vacated the judgment denying Xylem’s motion to stay the federal litigation while arbitration is pending, and remanded that issue to the district court “to consider the merits of that motion in light of our opinion.”

Field Intelligence Inc. v. Xylem Dewatering Solutions, Inc., No. 21-2087 (3d Cir. Sept. 13, 2022).

Denial of Motion to Compel Arbitration Vacated by Second Circuit Due to Insufficient Record Evidence of Presentment of “Scrollwrap Agreement” to Users

October 21, 2022 by Benjamin Stearns

Nicole Zachman brought a putative class action against the Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union (HVCU) for breach of contract and violation of the federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act, among other claims, based on HVCU’s alleged practice of collecting overdraft or insufficient funds fees on accounts that were not actually overdrawn. HVCU moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration provision included in the modified account agreement Zachman signed in 2019 when she opened her online account with HVCU. Zachman countered that the account agreement she signed in 2012, when she originally opened her account with HVCU, did not contain an arbitration agreement and further that she was not bound by the arbitration provision added in 2019 because she was never provided notice of its addition.

In response, HVCU argued that Zachman was on “inquiry notice” of the arbitration provision’s inclusion in the 2019 modified account agreement. Under New York law, an offeree who does not have actual notice of contract terms is nevertheless bound by those terms if he or she is on inquiry notice of them and assents to them through conduct. “In determining whether an offeree is on inquiry notice of contract terms, New York courts look to whether the term was obvious and whether it was called to the offeree’s attention. This often turns on whether the contract terms were presented to the offeree in a clear and conspicuous way.” When applied to web-based contracts, the courts “look to the design and content of the relevant interface” to determine if the contract terms were presented to the offeree in a way that would put him or her on inquiry notice of the terms.

Here, the Second Circuit determined that the record was insufficiently developed to permit a determination as to whether the presentment of the arbitration provision to users like Zachman was sufficiently “clear and conspicuous” to put her and other users on inquiry notice. The record contained evidence that the modified account agreement containing the arbitration provision was published on the HVCU website. HVCU customers could access the agreement by searching the HVCU website using its built-in search bar or clicking through the website’s “resources” tab to the “account disclosures” webpage. Users could also obtain a hard copy of the agreement by requesting it be mailed to them or by visiting a brick-and-mortar branch. However, HVCU did not post a notice of the added provisions in its quarterly newsletters or in members’ electronic statements, nor did it provide notice in any other fashion, such as by posting a “banner” notification on its webpage.

When HVCU established its new online banking system in 2019, it required users to first register their accounts. To register, users had to click through various “clickwrap” or “scrollwrap” agreements, including an “internet banking agreement.” The internet banking agreement incorporated the modified account agreement and provided links to it. The modified account agreement included the mandatory arbitration provision at issue.

The district court ruled that HVCU failed to demonstrate that Zachman’s registration for online banking put her on inquiry notice of the arbitration provisions. The court found that HVCU “provides no visual aid or description of any layout or design of the webpages that a user sees when registering for online banking services.” HVCU provided a copy of the internet banking agreement “but did not provide screenshots of the webpage(s) presenting the Internet Banking Agreement to online banking registrants.” Reviewing the copy of the internet banking agreement that had been provided, the court found that the relevant hyperlink and language “appear to be buried” in the agreement and, therefore, that HVCU had failed to establish Zachman was on inquiry notice. As a result, it denied the motion to compel.

The Second Circuit, however, vacated and remanded for further proceedings. The appellate court noted that HVCU did not submit any evidence of how the internet banking agreement was presented to users. “As a result, the district court could not resolve whether Zachman was on inquiry notice because, as it noted, it was unable to assess whether the relevant language and hyperlink are clear and conspicuous.” The district court could not properly engage in the required analysis based on the copy of the internet banking agreement in the record; rather, it was necessary to know “the design and content of the webpage and how the terms were presented.” Because no such evidence was presented by either party, the Second Circuit vacated and remanded for further proceedings to develop the record on this issue.

Zachman v. Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union, No. 21-999 (2d Cir. Sept. 14, 2022).

District Court Orders Limited Trial to Address Party’s Authority to Sign Arbitration Agreement

October 7, 2022 by Kenneth Cesta

Relying on the Federal Arbitration Act and recognizing that “this case presents one of the rare instances in which a defendant opposing arbitration survives the initial stage of an FAA proceeding,” the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s action to compel arbitration and ordered the matter to proceed to trial on the limited issues concerning the validity and enforceability of the arbitration agreement.

In August 2010, Opal Wells executed an unlimited power of attorney providing her son Leonard Wells as her attorney-in-fact and agent. Opal was admitted to the Boyd Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in 2013. In 2019, when new owners took over Boyd, they took steps to obtain signatures on paperwork regarding Opal, which included an arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement was part of a larger document but had its own signature block, which Leonard signed as his mother’s “responsible party.” Opal passed away in September 2020 and Leonard filed a state court action on behalf of her estate and wrongful death beneficiaries. Boyd then filed an action in the district court to compel arbitration of the state court claims, asserting that the power of attorney “provided Leonard with the authority to sign the Arbitration Agreement on Opal’s behalf.” Leonard filed a motion to dismiss Boyd’s action on several grounds, including lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to join an indispensable party, and the Colorado River abstention doctrine. The district court rejected each of those arguments. Leonard also raised arguments regarding the validity and enforceability of the arbitration agreement, asserting that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable because it was “part of a mass-produced, boiler-plate, pre-printed document” and that “an obviously gross disparity of bargaining power” supports a finding of unconscionability. The court rejected those arguments as well, noting that the court has “previously found that nursing home arbitration agreements with similar characteristics fall short of the high bar for procedural unconscionability despite their ‘boilerplate’ language” and that the claim of unequal bargaining power was unsupported.

Finally, Leonard argued that the authority he maintained as Opal’s power of attorney expired when she became incapacitated, rendering him incapable of signing the arbitration agreement on her behalf. With regard to this issue, the court concluded that “the making of the agreement is in issue” such that “this matter must proceed to trial” on limited issues regarding whether “Opal was incapacitated prior to the signing of the Arbitration Agreement” and, if necessary, “whether Leonard lacked actual knowledge of Opal’s incapacitation such that he could in good faith validly bind her and her successors in interest.” The court noted that the “Sixth Circuit has stated that ‘parties may seek targeted discovery on … disputed contract-formation questions’ under the FAA, provided that ‘any discovery must comport with § 4, which calls for a summary trial — not death by discovery.’” The court ordered the matter to proceed to trial on the limited issues addressed in the opinion and permitted limited discovery on the triable issues.

Boyd Nursing & Rehabilitation, LLC v. Wells, No. 0:22-cv-00011 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 30, 2022).