Mark Saloman and Jeffrey Shooman of FordHarrison have authored this article, published in JDSupra, discussing the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Skuse v. Pfizer, Inc.

In Davis v. Kozak, the California Court of Appeal denied an employer’s motion to compel arbitration of a former employee’s claims, holding that the arbitration agreement between the parties was unconscionable because (a) it purported to limit the employee’s discovery right to two depositions absent a showing to the arbitrator of “sufficient cause”; and (b) the arbitration requirement was not mutual in that the employer was permitted to seek judicial action in the event the employee breached his confidentiality agreement.

A California appellate court has held that a malpractice action brought by the shareholders of the entity that engaged the law firm are bound by the retention agreement’s arbitration provision. In Avetisyan v. Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, the court held that the shareholders, while not signing a separate engagement agreement, were third party beneficiaries of the firm’s agreement with the company they owned, and thus bound by its arbitration requirement.

Alexander J.S. Colvin of the Economic Policy Institute has issued this report, the tag line of which reads: “Access to the courts is now barred for more than 60 million American workers.”

An agreement for the acquisition of companies contained a provision requiring the parties to arbitrate disputes regarding the amount of working capital, but with a $3,000,000 cap. Disputes exceeding that amount were contractually excluded from arbitration. In Bobcat North America, LLC v. Inland Waste Holdings, the Delaware Superior Court rejected rejected a party’s attempt to keep the dispute in arbitration by arguing that interest should not be counted toward the cap, and also that its delivery of a post-dispute check should result in a reduction of the disputed amount. Rejecting these arguments, the court held the matter exceeded the contractual cap and that the court had jurisdiction over the matter.

A U.S. District Court in Florida has opined that it is up to the American Arbitration Association to decide whether a clearly arbitrable matter should be administered by AAA or FINRA. The arbitration provision at issue stated: “The Parties agree that all controversies, claims, disputes, and matters in question arising out of, or related to [these agreements] . . . shall be decided by binding arbitration before the American Arbitration Association, utilizing [its Commercial Rules or its Securities or Commercial Rules, as applicable]. . . . In the event it is determined that FINRA rules and regulations supersede any agreement to arbitrate before the American Arbitration Association, the Parties hereby specifically instruct the FINRA Director of Arbitration to assign the administration of all claims to the FINRA Boca Raton, Florida office[.]”

The Michigan Court of Appeals, in Tinsley v. Yatooma, has affirmed a law firm’s right to have a malpractice claim against it addressed in arbitration. Holding that nothing in Michigan’s attorney ethics rules prohibited arbitration of such matters, the court found the agreement to have been knowingly and voluntarily entered by the client.

This article–by Blaine Green and Dustin Chase-Woods of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP and published in JD Supra–discussing the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Monster Energy Co. v. City Beverages, LLC, in which the U.S. Supreme Court recently denied certiorari, sets the stage as follows: “In Monster Energy, the Ninth Circuit broadly interpreted the Federal Arbitration Act’s “evident partiality” standard for vacating arbitration awards, finding that the arbitrator’s failure to disclose a partial ownership interest in the arbitration provider (JAMS), combined with the fact that JAMS had administered 97 arbitrations for Monster in the preceding five years, created an impression of bias and partiality that required the award be vacated.”

Cody Berne of Stoll Berne has this article discussing the the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Interactive Brokers LLC v. Saroop, holding that arbitrators did not manifestly disregard the law by considering breaches of FINRA rules that did not permit the assertion of a private cause of action.

Jeffrey Brown and Tyler Runge of Payne & Fears authored this article, published in JD Supra, which begins: “The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) has recently issued a half-dozen decisions addressing the lawfulness of employee arbitration agreements. Employers should not ignore this body of law, which applies to union and non-union employers alike.”