The National Review published this article by Eric Troutman of Squire Patton Boggs, discussing the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling in Graulau v. Credit One Bank, N.A. Defendant had successfully enforced an arbitration clause, but then refused to front the arbitration costs after the plaintiff filed an in pauperis motion. Addressing this issue, the court ruled that “Liberally construing Ms. Graulau’s pro se filings, she has a non-frivolous argument that her arbitration agreement is unenforceable because arbitration would be prohibitively expensive for her.”

Maria Dinzeo of Courthouse News Service has authored this article discussing the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc., holding that Amazon delivery drivers who do not cross state lines are nonetheless transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce, and thus are exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act’s requirement of arbitration. Ms. Dinzeo explains that the 2-1 decision of the Ninth Circuit follows a similar First Circuit opinion from earlier this summer.

This article by Christina Tabacco in Law Street discusses the decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Arkin v. DoorDash, Inc., in which Judge Garaufis held a putative class action by DoorDash customers alleging deceptive conduct regarding tips ostensibly earmarked for delivery persons is subject to arbitration.

The Texas Court of Appeals has rejected a law firm’s motion to compel arbitration of a client’s claims against it, finding the arbitration agreement to be procedurally unconscionable. As summarized by the court:

“In this case, … the entire atmosphere in which the agreement was made, provides some evidence to support an implied finding that the arbitration provision was procedurally unconscionable.
“[Plaintiff] Herman testified in his affidavits that the meeting with appellant’s employee
was less than ten minutes. Herman made a brief statement to the employee explaining the accident, and the employee told Herman to sign a document. Herman asked the employee if the document was a contract, and the employee answered, ‘No, we are just gathering information,’ that the Daspit firm would review the facts, and that a lawyer would call him. The employee was ‘very impatient’ and told Herman ‘he could not stay to explain things.’ Herman also testified that when he signed the document, he ‘did not understand . . . that it
contained an arbitration clause.’ Herman argues appellant’s employee did not permit Herman to read the arbitration provision before signing the document.”

Ana Portal of Shutts & Bowen has authored this article, published in JD Supra. As she posits, “international conventions and institutional arbitration rules recognize improper arbitral tribunal composition as one of the few reasons for annulment or setting aside of the award, or for non-recognition and non-enforcement of the award. Therefore, properly and fully vetting your preferred arbitrators prior to their appointment, and perhaps even throughout the pendency of the arbitration proceeding, is paramount.”

Ladd Hirsch of Wi.nstead has this article in National Law Review. Mr. Hirsch frames the topic as follows: “This post offers input for private company owners and investors to help them decide whether litigation or arbitration provides them with the best forum in which to resolve future disputes with their business partners.”

In Prescription Care Pharmacy, LLC v. Optumrx, Inc. a California Court of Appeal had this to say at the outset of its opinion: “This appeal presents for our review an example of what can happen when over-lawyering muddles a simple concept into opaque and sometimes inconsistent language. If the parties wish to arbitrate a dispute, their agreement should say so in plain language. Here, the parties’ contract created an overly complex alternative dispute resolution procedure which resulted in more litigation, not less.”

In Smith v. Greatbank Trust Company, a federal court in Illinois held that a former employee could not be forced to arbitrate claims arising out of an ESOP, when the arbitration provisions were added by way of an amendment to the Plan that was adopted after he left the company but before he was permitted to remove his funds.

See this post in my Golf Dispute Resolution blog, addressing a California Court of Appeal decision affirming a substantial arbitration award in favor of a short sale purchaser of a golf course.

The Kentucky Supreme Court has issued this opinion, holding that a holder of a power of attorney was authorized to enter into an arbitration agreement on behalf of an entering resident into a long term care facility. In compelling arbitration of a negligence and wrongful death action against the facility, the court stated as follows: “when an agreement to arbitrate is presented as a condition of admission to a nursing home, unless otherwise agreed, a power of attorney expressing general authority to make necessary health care decisions includes the incidental or reasonably necessary authority to enter that agreement.”