Author Archives: Robert Harris

“California Brewery Worker Must Arbitrate Background Check Claims.” Jacklyn Wille of Bloomberg Law reports on this decision by the U.S. District Court (California) in Dominguez v. Stone Brewing Co., which begins with the observation that “California craft brewery Stone Brewing Co. successfully maneuvered a proposed class action challenging its employment applications and background checks intoContinue reading “Court Holds Employment Application Requires Arbitration”

“WeWork Executive Wants Fast Appeal of N.Y.-Based Arbitration Ban.” Patrick Dorrian has this article in Bloomberg Law, which describes the legal issue as follows: “Ayesha Whyte wants the Southern District of New York to certify for interlocutory review for the Second Circuit the question of whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts New York Civil PracticeContinue reading “Arbitration Pre-Emption Battle Takes Shape”

The New York Appellate Division determined that timing is everything, in reversing an Administrative Law Judge’s decision that ignored a contrary decision of a labor arbitration. In the Matter of the Claim of Matthew Bruce, the ALJ refused a collective request of the parties to adjourn a hearing addressing the claimant’s discharge, pending the issuanceContinue reading “Court Erred In Ignoring An Arbitration Award That Entered Prior To The Court Deciding Similar Issues”

In Miller v. Miller, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s determination that a binding settlement agreement was reached at a mediation, even though one of the parties refused to sign a Purchase Agreement that was contemplated by the settlement. According to the court, “[t]he parties entered into a mutual binding agreement [atContinue reading “Mediation Settlement Enforceable, Even Though One Party Refused To Sign An Agreement Required By The Settlement”

So, how does a court determine whether an arbitrator has attempted to modify an arbitration award in violation of statutory prescriptions on such action? More specifically, as a California court posits the issue in Lonky v. Patel, “[w]here… an arbitrator issues a series of rulings during an arbitration proceeding, how does a court determine whichContinue reading “When Are Arbitrators’ Changes To An Award OK?”

An Alabama federal court, in Carusone v. Nintendo of America, stayed a putative class action alleging a defect in a joystick controller, holding that the clickwrap agreement accepted by the plaintiff contained an enforceable arbitration provision. The court noted that the End-User License Agreement provided for a purchaser to opt-out of the agreement’s arbitration requirementContinue reading “Courts Reach Different Results Re Agreements To Arbitrate”

The Supreme Court of Nevada, in SVRE, LLC v. Queensridge Realty, LLC, reversed a trial court’s determination that an arbitration panel manifestly disregarded the law in its determination of a brokerage commission dispute. According to the Supreme Court, the lower court erred when it “consider[ed] the underlying merits of the dispute.”

According to the Florida Court of Appeals, a party, by filing an answer and participating in minimal discovery, did not waive its right to compel arbitration. What seems to have determinatively impacted the outcome, in Performance Air Mechanical, Inc. v. Miller Construction Services, Inc., is the failure of the opposing party to “file an answerContinue reading “Court Rejects Claim That Party Waived Right To Arbitrate”

In Doe v. TCSC, LLC, d/b/a Hendrick Toyota of North Charleston, the South Carolina Court of Appeals punted to an arbitrator to decide whether a car dealer’s broad arbitration provision encompasses events arising four-and-a-half years after Jane Doe purchased her car. The factual context, as described by the court: “Doe returned to the dealership toContinue reading “Court Determines Arbitrator Must Decide Whether Claim Is Subject To Arbitration”

“We conclude substantial evidence supported the trial court’s determination that Defendants waived their right to arbitrate the dispute.” So concludes a California Court of Appeal in T&S Therapy Centre International, Inc. v. Apex Dental Sleep Lab Incorporated.