The Florida District Court of Appeal has reversed a lower court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration. The lower court concluded that a provision stating that a party “may initiate arbitration” did not entitle a disputant to insist that the matter be arbitrated, even though the other party commenced litigation. Citing precedent, the appellate court held: “Arbitration clauses are usually interpreted as mandatory, even if they use the permissive “may,” unless they require both parties to consent to arbitration or otherwise make clear that one party can opt for litigation over arbitration.”

Chief United States District Judge Lee Rosenthal tackled thorny arbitration questions arising out of a dispute between two physicians and a law firm they engaged to provide tax advice and tax shelters. As Chief Judge Rosenthal succinctly summarizes: “The result is
piecemeal presentations before three different arbitrators. It is not efficient, and certainly not pretty, but it results from the parties’ own contracts and conduct.”

JD Supra has this article authored by Benjamin Stearns of Carlton Fields, discussing the decision in Precision Castparts Corp. v. Schulz Holding GmbH & Co. KG, No. 1:20-cv-03029 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2020).

The potential for a paradigm change toward online mediation in light of the necessities brought about by COVOID-19 is the subject of these two articles:

“Back To The Future – Where Does Mediation Go From Here?,” authored by Richard Byrne of National Arbitration and Mediation, and found here on JD Supra.

“VIEW: Online mediation for commercial disputes has huge potential for practitioners,” by Aman Hingorani and found here on CNBCTV18.com.

The decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in National Weather Service Employees Organization v. Federal Labor Relations Authority is the subject of this article by Erich Wagner in Government Executive.

The New York Times has published this article discussing a decision by Judge Jed Rakoff.

“Menendez, Banking and Finance Dems Urge C4 Negotiators to Ban Arbitration Clauses Attached to Needed Benefits.” See this article in Insider NJ.

Amtrak passengers’ litigation challenge to an arbitration requirement has been rejected by a federal court as speculative. Amtrak added the provision to its terms of service last year, prompting two passengers to sue, alleging that the requirement is ” unconstitutional and unlawful in several ways.” Amtrak’s motion to dismiss, was granted in view of the court’s rejection of their claim that “Amtrak injured them by depriving them of the ability to purchase rail tickets without waiving their right to a judicial forum to resolve any dispute that might arise-even though they have no claim to arbitrate and Amtrak has not invoked the arbitration provision against them.”

The Mississippi Supreme Court has reversed a lower court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration of an investor client’s claims against her brokerage company. The Supreme Court held that an arbitration customer executed between the customer at the time she opened her account could be enforced by a successor investment company that acquired the predecessor company.

The South Carolina Court of Appeals held that an arbitration agreement between a deceased grandmother and nursing home does not require a granddaughter’s personal claims against the nursing home be arbitrated, since the granddaughter was not a signatory to the agreement. The claims arose out of her discovery of her grandmother’s body after she wandered offsite and was killed in an alligator attack.