John Lewis of BakerHostetler has authored this article, published in Lexology, discussing the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Grice v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 20-70780.

Helen McFarland of Seyfarth Shaw LLP has this article in Lexology, discussing the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Burnett v. Pagliacci Pizza, Inc.

Law360 has published this article by Michael Angell discussing the U.S. District Court’s decision in Cleary v. Cisco Systems, Inc., no. 2:20-cv-10071.

Nicholas Sharratt and Michael Hartley of Stephenson Harwood have authored this article published in Lexology.

Law.com has this article by Greg Land, discussing the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision in Innovative Images LLC v. Summerville. And Law360’s discussion of the decision can be found in this article by Rose Manins.

Verizon engaged a collection company to pursue a debt owed by a customer. The collection company allegedly sent the debtor text messages that violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, resulting in the debtor filing suit against the collection company. The collection company moved to compel arbitration, citing the agreement between the debtor and Verizon. The U.S. District Court in Ioane v. MRS BPO, LLC a/k/a MRS Associates of New Jersey held that the debtor’s litigation claims did not arise out of his agreement with Verizon, and thus were not arbitrable.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has rejected a law firm’s attempt to compel arbitration of former employees’ suit for wrongful termination, allegedly in retaliation for reporting their discovery of another employee overbilling a client.

In Seltzer v. Clark Associates, LLC d/b/a “Clark & Fox,” the court held that provisions in the firm’s employee handbook setting forth the contours of an arbitration program did not constitute an agreement to arbitrate, in light of provisions in the handbook that stated they “are not intended to create contractual obligations with respect to any matters it covers.”

In Burgess v. Lithia Motors, Inc., the Supreme Court of Washington held that a court cannot judicially review an arbitrator’s decision during the pendency of the arbitration, but must await the conclusion of the matter.

According to the court, “[o]nce arbitration begins under the FAA, the court’s authority to resolve the dispute is transferred to the arbitrator. Judicial intervention is generally precluded during arbitration proceedings. The language, framework, and underlying intent behind the FAA confirm that generally courts are limited to ruling on gateway
disputes, such as whether the arbitration clause is enforceable, and addressing the
award at the conclusion of arbitration.”

The National Law Review has published this article by J. Michael Grubbs of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, discussing the Indiana Court of Appeals decision in Estate of King v. Aperion Care

Muhammed Faridi and Alvin Li of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler authored this article, published in JDSupra, discussing the New York court’s recent decision in Gol v. TNJ Holdings, Inc., Index No. 652304/2020, Doc. No. 75 (Sup. Ct., NY Cnty. Aug. 13, 2020).