Week's Best Posts

On interlocutory appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed a district court decision denying arbitration because a later-signed compensation agreement did not retroactively apply as it contravened the intent of a prior independent contractor agreement.

Plaintiff-Appellees Timothy Pratt, William Burrell (“plaintiffs”) and others brought a putative class action suit against Cellular Sales of New York and its parent company (together “Cellular”) for a denial of compensation and other benefits as plaintiffs were considered independent contractors instead of employees. Cellular required plaintiffs to create a separate corporate entity and also sign an independent sales agreement before acting as a representative to sell Verizon Wireless services. Cellular later hired plaintiffs as full-time employees and where the parties executed a new compensation agreement, which contained an arbitration provision. At issue was whether plaintiffs were required to arbitrate claims that occurred prior to the new compensation agreement.

Plaintiffs argued that the compensation agreement should not be applied retroactively and only prospectively. Defendants argued that the compensation agreement did not contain an “express temporal limitation” and therefore could apply to claims prior to the memorialization of the compensation agreement. The court noted that the plaintiffs and Cellular had an evolving relationship, whereby Cellular only started to provide employee benefits to plaintiffs after the new compensation agreement was executed. Additionally, the court noted that Cellular “affirmatively stated that [plaintiffs] were not employees for over a year, it rings hollow for them to now argue that the parties intended the word “employment” in the Compensation Agreements to apply retroactively as to this dispute.” For these and other reasons, the court denied Cellular’s motion to compel arbitration. Holick v. Cellular Sales of New York, LLC, No. 14-4323 (2nd Cir. Sept. 22, 2015).

This post written by Matthew Burrows, a law clerk at Carlton Fields in Washington, DC.

See our disclaimer.

A Second Circuit 3-judge panel affirmed a district court decision denying a request for declaratory and injunctive relief while subsequently compelling arbitration in a licensing infringement suit. On appeal, LG Electronics, Inc. and its US affiliate (together “LG”) alleged that Wi-LAN, Inc. and its US affiliate (together “Wi-LAN”) waived their right to arbitrate and further alleged that Wi-LAN should not be allowed to arbitrate the parties’ patent licensing agreement (“PLA”) while also litigating the infringement suit.

The panel considered three factors to determine whether Wi-LAN waived its right to arbitrate the PLA agreement, specifically: “(1) the time elapsed from when litigation was commenced until the request for arbitration; (2) the amount of litigation to date, including motion practice and discovery; and (3) proof of prejudice.” Considering these factors, the panel determined that LG did not suffer from either substantive prejudice or prejudice based on cost or delay. The panel noted that LG had not yet produced discovery and the litigation’s limited motion practice mostly occurred after Wi-LAN’s arbitration demand. Additionally, Wi-LAN’s two week demand for arbitration was not sufficient to cause delay.

Finally, the court considered LG’s claim splitting argument noting that the “doctrine does not bar arbitration of claims or defenses that the parties have agreed to arbitrate, while litigating overlapping claims or defenses that the parties have not agreed to arbitrate.” Citing Supreme Court precedent, the court found that because the parties had agreed to arbitrate the PLA, arbitration is appropriate to determine whether the agreement is effective. LG Electronics, Inc. v. Wi-LAN USA, No. 14-3035 (2nd Cir. Sept. 10, 2015).

This post written by Matthew Burrows, a law clerk at Carlton Fields in Washington, DC.

See our disclaimer.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that New Jersey state law fraud claims against Morgan Keegan, the brokerage firm now part of Raymond James & Associates, were tolled by the plaintiffs’ efforts to collect an arbitration award. The Eighth Circuit reasoned that, while the district court correctly held that certain federal and Arkansas state law claims were time-barred, the New Jersey claims were timely and erroneously dismissed.

Zaracor v. Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc., No. 13-3315 (8th Cir. Sept. 1, 2015).

This post written by Whitney Fore, a law clerk at Carlton Fields in Washington, DC.

See our disclaimer.