Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

In 2008, Chesapeake, as “Lessee,” entered into oil and gas leases with northeastern Pennsylvania landowners. The Leases indicate that they were “prepared by” Chesapeake and include a provision, stating that, in the event of a disagreement between “Lessor” and “Lessee” concerning “this Lease,” performance “thereunder,” or damages caused by “Lessee’s” operations, “all such disputes” shall be resolved by arbitration “in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association.” In 2013, Scout purchased several leases and began receiving royalties from Chesapeake. In 2014, Scout filed an arbitration demand on behalf of itself and similarly situated lessors, alleging that Chesapeake paid insufficient royalties. Chesapeake objected to class arbitration and sought a declaratory judgment, arguing that “[it] did not agree to resolve disputes arising out of the leases at issue in ‘class arbitration,’ nor did Chesapeake agree to submit the question of class arbitrability ... to an arbitrator.” The district court and Third Circuit ruled in favor of Chesapeake, finding that the issue of arbitrability is a question for the court. Based on the language of the Leases, the nature and contents of the AAA rules, and existing case law, the Leases did not “clearly and unmistakably” delegate the question of class arbitrability to the arbitrators. View "Chesapeake Appalachia LLC v. Scout Petroleum, LLC" on Justia Law

Celeste Grynberg, individually and as trustee on behalf of the Rachel Susan Trust, Stephen Mark Trust, and Miriam Zela Trust, and Jack J. Grynberg, petitioned the federal district court to vacate an arbitration award that had been entered against them and in favor of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (“KMEP”) and Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, L.P. (“KMCO2”). The Grynbergs invoked the court’s diversity jurisdiction. When they filed the action, the Grynbergs were citizens of Colorado, KMEP was a Delaware master limited partnership, and KMCO2 was a Texas limited partnership with one partner, KMEP. The district court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. It concluded that under "Carden v. Arkoma Associates," (494 U.S. 185, 195 (1990)), KMEP’s citizenship was the citizenship of all its unitholders, and because KMEP had at least one Colorado unitholder, its citizenship was not completely diverse from the Grynbergs’. The Grynbergs appealed, arguing the district court improperly applied "Carden." Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Grynberg v. Kinder Morgan Energy" on Justia Law

In 2010, Yan Chen, who had a business interest in a restaurant, entered into a 10-year lease agreement with Russell Realty, LLC, and MRT, LLC. The property to be leased was located in Greenville. The lease agreement was drafted by Russell Realty and contained an arbitration clause. In 2012, Russell Realty and MRT sued Chen along with Qiaoyun He, Joe Zou, and Yami Buffet, Inc., alleging breach of contract. Chen filed a response to the motion, alleging that she had been in China for a few months, and that she had not been personally served with notice of the lawsuit. She subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the lease agreement contained an arbitration clause and that "said complaint[] fails to state any measures that have been taken in lieu of the fulfillment of such agreed Arbitration Clause." The trial court denied both Russell Realty and MRT's motion for a default judgment and Chen's motion to dismiss. About a month after this, Chen filed a motion to compel arbitration, asserting that, as "part of Plaintiffs['] lease agreement, plaintiff[s] agreed to binding arbitration. In 2013, Chen filed a second motion to dismiss, alleging that Russell Realty and MRT had refused to mediate and had refused to arbitrate. Russell Realty and MRT filed an objection to Chen's second motion to dismiss, asserting that "time of the stay set by the court has almost expired and Defendant Yan Chen has not made any movement, act, or effort to seek Arbitration to resolve the issues." Russell Realty and MRT again sought a default judgment against the defendants, including Chen. She asserted that counsel for Russell Realty and MRT had failed to respond to her attempts to seek a settlement before the hiring of a mediator or arbitrator and that, subsequently, she had contacted a mediator/arbitrator and Russell Realty and MRT had not responded to her choice of mediator/arbitrator. The trial court then entered an order stating that the Chen's appeal was moot as the court had not yet entered a final order. In early 2015, the trial court entered an order awarding Russell Realty and MRT $682,050.10 against all the defendants, including Chen, jointly and severally. Chen appealed. Based on its review of the facts in the circuit court record, the Supreme Court reversed with regard to Chen and remanded the case for the trial court to enter an order requiring arbitration in accordance with the terms of the lease agreement. View "Chen v. Russell Realty, LLC" on Justia Law

Dr. Meinders sued United Healthcare in Illinois state court, alleging that in 2013, United sent him and a number of similarly-situated persons an unsolicited “junk fax” advertising United’s services, which violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. 227, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, and amounted to common law conversion. United removed the case to federal court and successfully moved to dismiss for improper venue under Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(3), claiming that Meinders had entered into a “Provider Agreement” with a United-owned entity, ACN, in 2006, which bound him to arbitrate his “junk fax” claims in Minnesota. Meinders unsuccessfully moved to strike or, in the alternative, for leave to file a sur-reply addressing the assumption theory and declaration. The Seventh Circuit reversed because the district court premised its dismissal order on law and facts to which Meinders did not have a full and fair opportunity to respond. View "Dr. Robert L. Meinders, D.C. v. UnitedHealthcare, Inc." on Justia Law

Devon acquired the rights to distribute robotic medical devices, CytoCare and i.v. Station, from Robotics. DeViedma, Robotics's general counsel, negotiated the contracts. Each contained an arbitration clause. Robotics later agreed to provide management consulting services through DeViedma. DeViedma allegedly obstructed a possible sub-licensing contract with McKesson; Devon failed to make franchise payments, leading Robotics to draw down a $5 million line of credit from Itochu, guaranteed by Devon. Itochu eventually sued Devon. The parties terminated the management consulting services. Robotics terminated Devon's CytoCare contract and entered into an agreement with McKesson. Robotics also alleged breaches of the i.v. Station agreement. DeViedma e-mailed hospital customers telling them that Devon faced financial difficulties and lacked staff qualified to manage i.v. Station installations. Devon sued DeViedma and McKesson, claiming breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with current and prospective contractual relations, defamation, and conspiracy. The court rejected a motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration. DeViedma did not appeal that order. Extensive litigation followed. DeViedma later moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims for breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference with contractual relations. The court rejected his arguments in favor of arbitration. The Third Circuit dismissed DeViedma’s interlocutory appeal, rejecting an argument that the denial of summary judgment was an appealable order under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 16(a)(1)(C). View "Devon Robotics LLC v. DeViedma" on Justia Law

Alpine repairs automotive glass and, under Minnesota law, receives from insured vehicle owners the right to seek payment from insurance companies for repairs performed. Alpine and several insurers had disputes regarding the amounts paid for 482 separate claims. Minnesota law mandates arbitration of these disputes. The district court determined many claims were barred by a two-year statute of limitations included in some of the insurance policies; 248 claims either were not governed by the two-year statute of limitations or were timely. The court consolidated these claims for one arbitration and ordered arbitration. Alpine appealed the consolidation order. The Eighth Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the consolidation order was not an appealable final judgment. The parties pursued arbitration of one claim in which Alpine sought reimbursement for an alleged underpayment of $398.77. Arbitration resulted in a ruling in favor of the insurance company. ​The district court confirmed the award. The Eighth Circuit again dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction View "Alpine Glass, Inc. v. Country Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Southeast Construction, L.L.C. ("SEC"), appealed a circuit court order that found WAR Construction, Inc., had provided SEC with certain releases as previously ordered by the circuit court and that SEC was accordingly now required to pay the outstanding $263,939 remaining on a $373,939 judgment previously entered on a February 16, 2011, arbitration award obtained by WAR against SEC, along with interest accruing from February 16, 2011. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed that judgment to the extent it held that WAR provided all required releases and that SEC was obligated to fulfill the judgment entered on the arbitration award. However, the Court reversed the judgment inasmuch as it held that SEC is required to pay interest on the award as calculated from February 16, 2011. On remand, the circuit court was instructed to calculate interest on the principal at the rate set forth in the arbitration award accruing from September 8, 2014. View "Southeast Construction L.L.C. v. WAR Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioners sued Respondents. Respondents, represented by counsel, made a settlement offer. The offer subsequently expired. Respondents’ counsel later extended a new settlement offer with terms that mirrored the prior offer. Petitioners’ attorney timely accepted the offer, and the trial court accepted the settlement (February 8 settlement). After Respondents’ attorney learned that he lacked authority to extend the settlement offer, he made a new settlement offer, which materially varied from the February 8 settlement. Petitioners moved to enforce the February 8 settlement. The trial court granted the motion, concluding that Respondents’ attorney had actual and apparent authority to extend the settlement offer and, alternatively, that Respondents were equitably estopped from disputing that authority. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that because Respondents’ assent to the agreement was not in writing, the requirements of Ariz. R. Civ. P. 80(d) were not met, and the agreement was unenforceable as a matter of law. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because the parties in this case did not dispute the existence and terms of the February 8 settlement, Rule 80(d) did not apply; (2) even if Rule 80(d) applied, the agreement satisfied the rule; and (3) the agreement was enforceable because the attorney acted within the apparent authority given by his clients. View "Robertson v. Alling" on Justia Law

Oregel filed a class action against his former employer, PacPizza, alleging that PacPizza failed to fully reimburse delivery drivers for necessary expenses associated with using their personal vehicles to deliver pizza on PacPizza’s behalf. Seventeen months and more than 1,300 attorney hours later, PacPizza petitioned to compel arbitration. The agreement to arbitrate appeared, in a very small font, on the employment application. There is no evidence that Oregel was given a copy of the application or saw it at any point after he submitted it. The trial court denied the petition, finding PacPizza waived its right to enforce a purported arbitration agreement. The court of appeal affirmed. Although the trial court made no express finding of bad faith, the tone of its ruling is suggestive of such a finding and, had it been made, sufficient evidence would have supported the finding. While California has a strong public policy in favor of arbitration, that goal was frustrated by defendant’s conduct.” View "Oregel v. PacPizza, LLC" on Justia Law

Union Electric is a power company, and EIM is a trade-association-owned excess carrier for power companies. Union, as an association member, is a partial owner of EIM and is the named insured in a $100 million excess liability policy issued by EIM. Union and other power companies drafted the general form policy; Union negotiated the present policy with EIM. The policy requires that coverage disputes go through a mini-trial and arbitration. An exclusive forum-selection clause and a choice-of-law clause named New York. After failure of a Missouri reservoir caused extensive damage, Union paid to settle claims; EIM paid $68 million of the policy's $100 million limit. Union filed suit in Missouri seeking the remaining $32 million plus damages for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay. The district court dismissed, based on the forum-selection clause, The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded for consideration of the relationship between the mini-trial requirement, the arbitration provision, and a public policy argument. On remand, the court denied the motion to dismiss, noting that arbitration agreements in insurance contracts are unenforceable under Missouri law and that contractual choice-of-law provisions have been held unenforceable if they would allow enforcement of such an agreement. The Supreme Court, in a different case, subsequently supported enforcement of contractual forum-selection clauses "[i]n all but the most unusual cases." Relying on that case, EIM moved for a transfer stating that it would not seek enforcement of the arbitration provision. The court held that the motion was not untimely and that the forum-selection clause was enforceable. The Eighth Circuit denied a writ of prohibition or mandamus to prevent the transfer, stating that Union did not establish entitlement to extraordinary relief. View "Union Elec. Co. v. Energy Mut. Ins. Ltd." on Justia Law