In this article authored by Sonia Russo in JD Supra, she discusses a New York Supreme Court decision in 2004 Parker Family LP v. BDO USA LLP, in which she describes the issue thusly: “In bringing their motion to compel arbitration, defendants also relied on the Agreements, which contained an arbitration provision requiring any dispute ‘between the parties’ to be resolved in arbitration. Although plaintiffs weren’t parties to the Agreements, Defendants argued that because plaintiffs, as non-signatories to the Agreements, alleged third-party beneficiary status under the Agreements in plaintiffs’ third-party breach of contract claims, plaintiffs should also be bound by the arbitration provision in those Agreements.”

Jeff Kichaven has authored this article in Law 360, which begins: “The purpose of this article is to explain some reasons why mediators might decide not to promise people that their mediations are confidential. Someday, that promise will result in a mediator being on the wrong end of a serious malpractice case.”

In Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. v. Stern, a federal district court has been requested to vacate a FINRA arbitration award on the ground that an arbitration panel manifestly disregarded the law. The court, confronted with an award that did not state the panel’s reasons, has recognized that “because the panel did not provide an “explained decision” for its arbitration award, the Court does not currently have a viable method to conduct even a limited review of the merits of the decision.” Accordingly, the court has requested “that each party [state] its position on whether remand to the arbitration panel would be appropriate in these circumstances.”

The California Court of Appeal has issued a detail opinion in Aixtron, Inc. v. Veeco Instruments Inc., holding that neither the Federal Arbitration Act nor its California counterpart permitted an arbitrator to authorize a former employer arbitrating against a former employee to obtain third party discovery of the new employer’s computers in a search for misconduct by the employee.

John Lewis of BakerHostetler authored this article published by JD Supra, discussing the New Jersey Supreme Court’s opinions in Arafa v. Health Express Corp. and Colon v. Strategic Delivery Solutions, LLC, Nos. 083174 and 083154 (July 14, 2020).

JD Supra has published this article by Frederick A. Acomb at Miller Canfield.

The United States District Court (D. Nevada) has determined that claims brought by Tesla employee-whistleblower Karl Hansen are subject to arbitration. The court’s opinion in Hanson v. Musk can be found here.

“Information aggregator tool to offer paid-for insight into leading arbitrators.” in an article in The Global Legal Post, Ben Rigby describes a new initiative by Arbitrator Intelligence to gather information and report on the performance of international arbitrators.

A federal court in Kentucky dismissed employment claims brought against the company by a plaintiff who opted to forgo the arbitration program in which he agreed to pursue such claims. In Anderson v. Charter Communications, the court determined that dismissal–rather than a litigation stay–was appropriate under Sixth Circuit law since all the claims were being sent to arbitration.

In particular, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that “‘This case should not be dismissed on the ground the Plaintiffs theories of recovery have a one-year statute of limitations and the end result of a dismissal would be a dismissal of the entire case.’ … While Plaintiffs statement may be true, this provides no basis for the Court to undermine the parties’ intent as demonstrated through the Arbitration Agreement. [The parties] intended to mutually bind themselves to arbitrate disputes arising out of Anderson’s employment. The Arbitration Agreement states that ‘[i]f an individual or entity files a claim beyond [the statute of limitations], the claim will not be covered … and the claimant will be notified that the claim has been closed.’… Despite such language, Plaintiff chose to file the instant lawsuit instead of bringing his claim [in arbitration]. Plaintiff cannot now use his intentional breach as a basis for the Court to decline enforcement of the parties’ Agreement. To do so would render the binding power of the Arbitration Agreement void because any party seeking to circumvent it could do so by filing a lawsuit shortly before the expiration of the statute of limitations. Thus, Plaintiffs argument provides no bar to the dismissal of this action.”

The Fashion Law has posted this article discussing a New York trial court decision issued in Andowah Newton v. LVMH, 154178/2019 (N.Y. Sup.) holding that an employment arbitration provision is overridden by a New York statute “which prohibits the enforcement of “agreements that force victims of sexual harassment to arbitrate their claims.’” The court also rejected the employer’s claim that the New York statute is pre-empted by the Federal Arbitration Act, based upon “a key limitation set forth in that very statute; to wit, that it only applies to ‘a transaction involving commerce.’” According to the court:

“Because claims for sexual harassment, or other discrimination- based claims, cannot reasonably be characterized as claims concerning or ‘arising out of’ ‘a transaction involving commerce,’ and additionally because the instant case involves purely intrastate activity, the FAA cannot reasonably be said to apply to the Arbitration Agreement’s reference to arbitration of sexual harassment or other discrimination-based claims.”