Supreme Court Preview: An Airline and an Employee Will Argue Over the Reach of an Exclusion from the Federal Arbitration Act

By Russ Bleemer

The U.S. Supreme Court reconvenes Monday morning to hear oral arguments in the third of four arbitration matters before the justices in a nine-day period.

Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, No. 21-309, may have the biggest impact on workers of any of the cases.  It presents a Federal Arbitration Act Sec. 1 question:

Whether workers who load or unload goods from vehicles that travel in interstate commerce, but do not physically transport such goods themselves, are interstate ‘transportation workers’ exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act.

The distinction of whether a worker is operating in interstate commerce has a knotty history.  A restrictive reading could eliminate a workplace dispute arbitration obligation for many employees nationwide. An expansive reading could eviscerate employment agreement dispute resolution clauses.

The Court hasn’t been sympathetic to workers avoiding arbitration.  But the view isn’t categorical. A notable exception is the three-year-old FAA Sec. 1 case, New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 139 S. Ct. 532 (2019) (available here), in which an 8-0 opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch held that an independent contractor—a long-haul truck driver—was exempt from arbitration because there was no employer-employee relationship.

FAA Sec. 1 defines the statute’s application to maritime transactions and commerce. The section ends noting that “nothing [in the statute] shall apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.”

Southwest Airlines likely will require a similar textual analysis of the so-called Sec. 1 residual clause–which New Prime needed for “contracts of employment”–on “interstate commerce” characteristics.

The Court has interpreted the law to mean that the exception from FAA application is only for transportation workers “engaged in” interstate commerce. Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001) (available at https://bit.ly/2HhwYLu).

Original plaintiff Latrice Saxon, now the Supreme Court case respondent, is a “Ramp Agent Supervisor for Southwest Airlines who occasionally loads and unloads passenger baggage from airplanes,” according to Southwest Airlines’ cert petition, which is available at the docket link above.

Saxon works at Chicago’s Midway Airport. She filed a class-action suit against her employer for overtime she contended that the employees were owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case (available at https://bit.ly/3rRA8Ln) held that the plaintiff was a transportation worker, and therefore exempt from the FAA, and didn’t have to arbitrate. Southwest Airlines requires all workers who aren’t covered by collective bargaining agreements to arbitrate workplace disputes, according to court papers.

Noting a circuit split, Southwest Airlines appealed, and the nation’s top Court agreed to decide whether the local worker was FAA-exempt, which suggests the examination of the plaintiff’s work in relation to interstate commerce.

* * *

That’s the key inquiry for the amicus filings on both sides. The briefs supporting petitioner Southwest Airlines echo the carrier’s position seeking to have a narrow FAA Sec. 1 definition and define being “engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” as meaning moving goods or people across borders. Southwest Airlines and the amicus parties want the Seventh Circuit decision reversed.  Joining the petitioner are six amicus briefs, from the

  • The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers;
  • Lyft Inc.;
  • Uber Technologies Inc.;
  • Amazon.com;
  • Washington Legal Foundation, a conservative, free-market think tank and public interest law firm (which notes that “The FAA contains a discrete exemption, in § 1, for a few categories of transportation workers. Congress included the exemption not to excuse these classes of workers from arbitration, but merely to enable them to arbitrate through other congressionally created channels. The respondent here is not subject to an alternative channel of this sort; she just wants to avoid arbitration altogether. She seeks to gut the federal policy in favor of arbitration by expanding the § 1 exemption far beyond its proper bounds.”), and
  • Airlines for America, an 86-year-old trade association, which discusses FAA Sec. 1 but also emphasizes the benefits of arbitration for the airline industry.

There are seven amicus filings backing respondent/original plaintiff Latrice Saxon in asking the Court to uphold the Seventh Circuit and retain the ruling that her Chicago-based transportation work was a part of interstate commerce and she is therefore exempt under FAA Sec. 1 from arbitration in her employment agreement. The briefs are from

  • The National Employment Lawyers Association, whose members focus on representing individual workers;
  • The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations–the AFL-CIO;
  • The American Association for Justice, a trial lawyers’ professional organization;
  • A brief on behalf of 17 states, their attorneys general, and the District of Columbia;
  • Public Justice, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit law firm, consumer advocacy group, and left-leaning think tank;
  • The National Academy of Arbitrators and the National Association of Railroad Referees, whose brief states, “It may appear puzzling that organizations of professional arbitrators oppose petitioner’s proposal to increase the use of arbitration under the FAA, but it is not. Amici’s position is grounded in their fundamental fidelity to the institution of arbitration, to a clear understanding of Congress’ legislative intent . . ., and to judicial precedent,” and
  • Three legal historians who maintain that the Court has recognized that Congress enacted the FAA Sec. 1 exemption “to avoid unsettling then-established dispute-resolution schemes covering workers like ‘railroad employees’ under Title III of the Transportation Act of 1920 and ‘seamen’ under sections 25-26 of the Shipping Commissioners Act of 1872,” regardless of whether the transportation workers crossed state lines in their employment, relying on Circuit City reasoning. The professors are James Pope, Rutgers Law School, Newark, N.J.; Imre Szalai, Loyola University New Orleans College of Law, and Paul Taillon, University of Auckland, in Auckland, New Zealand.

The parties’ and the amicus briefs are available on the Supreme Court’s docket page, linked at the top of this article.

* * *

While Southwest Airlines may have the biggest direct impact on workers of the 2021-2022 Supreme Court caseload, it isn’t alone in its arbitration consequences. Four of the six matters before the U.S. Supreme Court involve employment cases at their core, though often arcane legal points have brought them to the Court and will be the focus of the decisions, as well as in the two arguments still to be heard. The effect of the opinions could have a profound effect on workplace disputes . . .  or boost Congressional efforts to change arbitration in Congress. (See report on the recently signed-into-law Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 and the push for further reforms on CPR Speaks here.)

In addition to Southwest Airlines,  on Nov. 2 the Court heard Badgerow v. Walters, No. 20-1143, which awaits decision. The case focuses on the limits of state court jurisdiction and the reach of federal court jurisdiction over the provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act.  The case was brought by a financial services employee against her bosses and company for harassment and other workplace claims.  More on the November argument on CPR Speaks here.

Last Monday, the Court examined a suit by a former Taco Bell employee who claimed that the franchise company had waived its right under her employment agreement to arbitrate their wage dispute.  The original plaintiff was contesting an Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that found for the company because the employee had not been prejudiced by the company’s conduct.  The former employee challenged the prejudice requirement and asked the Court to focus on the company’s actions. The case of Morgan v. Sundance Inc., No. 21-328,  is expected to be decided before the current Court term ends in June; more on the argument earlier this week on CPR Speaks here.

Next Wednesday’s Viking River Cruises v. Moriana, No. 20-1573, focuses on the relationship between the FAA and California’s Private Attorneys General Act. The Court will likely revisit its extensive history on federal preemption of state laws.

The PAGA law enables an individual employee to seek a court judgment for breach of California labor laws as a “private attorney general” on behalf of the state of California. Thousands of cases have been filed under the law and, many employers say, skirt employment agreements requiring arbitration for workplace disputes. For background on Viking River, see Mark Kantor, “US Supreme Court to Review Whether Private Attorney General Action Can Be Waived by an Arbitration Agreement,” CPR Speaks (Dec. 16) (available here).

* * *

A preview and an analysis of the 2021-2022 Supreme Court arbitration docket can be found at Russ Bleemer, “The Supreme Court’s Six-Pack Is Set to Refine Arbitration Practice,” 40 Alternatives 17 (February 2022), and Imre Szalai, “Not Like Other Cases: SCOTUS’s Unique Arbitration Year,” 40 Alternatives 28 (February 2022), both available for free at https://bit.ly/3GDEJEK.

* * *

A live audio stream of Monday’s argument will be available at the Court’s home page, here. Archives of recordings and transcripts for cases this term, including the three arbitration cases argued so far, are available on the Court’s website here.

* * *

The author edits Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation at altnewsletter.com for CPR.

[END]

Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Whether Section 1782 Allows Discovery for Use Before International Arbitration Tribunals

By John Pinney & Russ Bleemer

The U.S. Supreme Court today heard almost two hours of argument on whether 28 U.S.C. § 1782 allows parties to seek a federal district court order for discovery of evidence for use before international arbitral tribunals.  

In consolidated cases this morning, the Court not only heard arguments from the parties’ counsel but also conducted a potentially pivotal discussion with an attorney from the U.S. Solicitor General’s office.  The government sided with the petitioners and argued against Section 1782’s application for both private international and investor-state arbitrations.

A key issue that emerged during today’s argument was whether the phrase “foreign or international tribunal” should be the focus or whether the single word “tribunal” alone should form the basis of the court’s consideration of whether Section 1782 allows U.S. federal district courts to provide judicial assistance to international arbitral tribunals. 

The Court itself was hesitant about arbitration matters’ inclusion in the law, which is titled “Assistance to foreign and international tribunals and to litigants before such tribunals.” There are “too many problems extending this,” said Justice Stephen G. Breyer to respondent counsel urging foreign arbitral tribunals’ access to the law, asking whether the decision should simply be, “[G]o to Congress [and] get it worked out.”

Soon after, Justice Neil Gorsuch said that including arbitration tribunals “runs very counter to our intuitions that arbitration which is that it is supposed to be quick. . . . And [Sec.] 1782 is a very liberal grant of discovery.”

The cases were differentiated by the types of arbitration involved.  ZF Automotive US Inc. v. Luxshare Ltd., No. 21-401, is a private arbitration, and AlixPartners LLP v. The Fund for Protection of Investor Rights in Foreign States, No. 21-518, is investor-state arbitration, involving the government of Lithuania.

The Court granted certiorari for the two cases argued today in December, shortly after another case addressing the same issue argued today was dismissed in late September.  That case, Servotronics, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce, PLC, No. 20-794, was voluntarily dismissed on the eve of argument that had been set for Oct. 5, during the first week of the Court’s 2021-2022 term. 

[CPR Speaks blog publisher CPR filed an amicus brief in Servotronics and today’s AlixPartners urging the Court to take the cases because of the significance of their issues to international arbitration, but not in support of either side. These briefs were written principally by co-author John Pinney. For details, see John Pinney, “International Arbitration Is Back at the Supreme Court with Today’s Cert Grant on Two Section 1782 Cases,” CPR Speaks (Dec. 10) (available here).]

The first of the two consolidated cases argued today was ZF Automotive, which arises from a private commercial contract with ZF Automotive’s German parent that requires any disputes to be arbitrated before the German Arbitration Institute.  The ZF Automotive case was brought in Detroit prior to commencement of any private international arbitration in Germany.  The district court allowed the requested discovery.  On appeal to the Sixth Circuit, ZF Automotive, in a most unusual move, petitioned for certiorari before judgment to bypass waiting for the Sixth Circuit to decide its appeal. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on Dec. 10.

The second case, AlixPartners, involves an investor-state arbitration arising from a bilateral investment treaty between Russia and Lithuania.  Interestingly, the AlixPartners case is an appeal from the Second Circuit, which in its decision distinguished NBC (see details below), as well as the Second Circuit’s more recent In re Guo, 965 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2000), to allow Section 1782 discovery for investor-state cases.

By accepting both a private international arbitration case (ZF Automotive) and an investor-state arbitration case (AlixPartners), the Supreme Court is poised to decide definitively whether any non-governmentally created tribunal can be a “foreign or international tribunal” within the meaning of Section 1782. That was the key focus in today’s arguments.

The cases have attracted 12 amicus briefs – five in support of the petitioners opposing Section 1782 discovery, four in favor of Section 1782 discovery, and three in support of neither side. 

The most significant amici is the United States, which opposes Section 1782 discovery in both private and investor-state arbitrations, arguing that the term “tribunal” does not include international arbitral tribunals, whether they be created either for private international arbitrations or under bilateral or multi-national investment treaties.  The Solicitor General requested and was granted the right to argue orally for the United States today in support of petitioners.

Today’s Arguments

As noted above, a key issue that emerged early in today’s arguments was whether the Section 1782 phrase “foreign or international tribunal” should be the focus or whether the single word “tribunal” alone should form the basis of the court’s consideration of whether the law allows U.S. federal district courts to provide judicial assistance to international arbitral tribunals.   

The 58-year-old statute states, “The district court of the district in which a person resides or is found may order him to give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal, including criminal investigations conducted before formal accusation.  . . .”

The petitioners opposing Section 1782 discovery–Roman Martinez, deputy office managing partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Latham & Watkins on behalf of ZF Automotive, and Joseph T. Baio, senior counsel at New York’s Willkie Farr & Gallagher, for AlixPartners–argued that the entire phrase, “foreign or international tribunal,” must be considered, and that the phrase has never been used with respect to an arbitral tribunal.

The respondents, on the other hand, focused on the word “tribunal” and argued that it has frequently been used with respect to arbitral tribunals, both contemporaneously in 1964 when the statute was enacted and in current usage. The respondent attorneys arguing on behalf of, respectively, Luxshare and the Fund for Protection of Investor Rights in Foreign State, were Andrew Rhys Davies, a New York partner at Allen & Overy, and Alexander A. Yanos, a New York and Washington partner in Alston & Bird.

Veteran Assistant Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler’s argument, which split the four party appearances, appeared to be given weight, especially in relation to how allowing discovery under Section 1782 might affect the United States’ relations with foreign governments.  His argument contended that there is no meaningful distinction between private international arbitral tribunals and arbitral tribunals established under investment treaties, mainly because neither are “governmental.” 

If you have a U.S. court engaged in discovery, said Kneedler, “it creates the potential for . . . controversy and . . . for having the United States involved . . . in something that is really none of its business.”

The takeaway from Kneedler’s arguments was that the Court should be cautious in accepting respondents’ arguments because any expansion of the scope of Section 1782’s reach should be addressed by Congress.  Congress “had specifically in mind formality,” he concluded.

Kneedler’s point resonated with both Justices Gorsuch and Breyer in the argument that immediately followed by Andrew Rhys Davies, arguing for Luxshare to allow discovery under Sec. 1782 for the company’s arbitration in Germany.  Davies had a difficult time answering Gorsuch’s repeated inquiries on why a definitive Sec. 1782 extension shouldn’t be left to Congress.  Davies ultimately countered that there was no need because the full statute answers the application question by putting it in the U.S. District Court’s hands.

Breyer shrugged the answer off, and said there may be too many problems extending the statute, referring to timing of the discovery requests in the arbitration proceeding, including before a tribunal is established.

Davies insisted the statute as it currently exists contemplates those decisions by the federal court, but Gorsuch jumped back into the conversation immediately, noting that such moves runs counter what arbitration is supposed to be, characterizing Sec. 1782, as noted, as “a very liberal grant of discovery.”

Source of the Review

The Court’s review on this issue can be attributed to a 3-to 2-circuit split created when the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided Abdul Latif Jameel Transp. Co. v. FedEx Corp., 939 F.3d 710 (6th Cir. 2019) (“FedEx”).  At the time, the only circuit court decisions on the issue had been decided in 1999 by the Second Circuit (National Broadcasting Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 165 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 1999)) and the Fifth Circuit (Republic of Kazakhstan v. Biedermann Int’l., 168 F.3d 880 (5th Cir. 1999)). In both cases, the courts ruled that the phrase “foreign or international tribunal” in Sec. 1782 did not apply with respect to private international arbitral tribunals. 

After the Sixth Circuit decided FedEx, the Fourth Circuit followed the Sixth Circuit in Servotronics Inc. v. Boeing Co., 954 F.3d 209 (4th Cir. 2020), but in a parallel case also brought by Servotronics, the Seventh Circuit instead followed the Second and Fifth Circuits in Servotronics Inc. v. Rolls-Royce PLC, 975 F.3d 689 (7th Cir. 2021), holding that Sec. 1782 did not apply with respect to private international arbitral tribunals.

All of these cases came in the wake of the only U.S. Supreme Court facing Section 1782 head on, Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004). Today’s arguments discussed extending discovery to arbitration tribunals in light of Intel’s inclusion of matters quasi-judicial and administrative bodies.

* * *

For an amicus argument against allowing Sec. 1782 discovery, see analysis by Derek T. Ho & Eliana M. Pfeffer, “Discovery in Aid of Foreign Arbitration Proceedings Unfairly Imposes Tremendous Costs on U.S. Companies,” 40 Alternatives 58 (April 2022) (available at https://bit.ly/3JUXs13).

* * *

Today’s consolidated cases are expected to be decided before the Court’s term ends at the end of June. The transcript and audio of the Sec. 1782 arguments are available on the Supreme Court’s website here. Justice Clarence Thomas has missed this week’s arguments — hospitalized with an infection, according to the Court’s Sunday announcement — but will participate using the briefs and the transcript.

While Court watchers’ eyes this week have been on the confirmation hearings in the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, the continuing business of the nation’s top Court is a two-week deep dive into arbitration. The arbitration focus will resume with arguments on Monday morning with Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, No. 21-309. That employment case will consider whether workers who load or unload goods from vehicles that travel in interstate commerce, but do not physically transport such goods themselves, are interstate ‘transportation workers’ exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act.

Highlights from Morgan v. Sundance Inc.No. 21-328 — an employment arbitration case that was the first of the March arbitration cases, argued earlier this week — can be found on CPR Speaks here. The four-case run will conclude next Wednesday with Viking River Cruises v. MorianaNo. 20-1573, which focuses on the relationship between the FAA and California’s Private Attorneys General Act. For background on Viking River, see Mark Kantor, “US Supreme Court to Review Whether Private Attorney General Action Can Be Waived by an Arbitration Agreement,” CPR Speaks (Dec. 16) (available here).

And one 2021-2022 term arbitration case, Badgerow v. Walters, No. 20-1143, awaits decision. Details on the case from the Nov. 2 arguments is available on CPR Speaks here.

* * *

Pinney is counsel to Graydon Head & Ritchey in Cincinnati. On CPR’s behalf, he acted as counsel of record in an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to accept the Servotronics and AlixPartners cases, as detailed above. Details on the brief can be found on CPR Speaks here. His AlixPartners brief on CPR’s behalf can be found on the Supreme Court docket page linked at the top or directly at https://bit.ly/3pzZpHj. Bleemer edits Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation for CPR at altnewsletter.com.  Tamia Sutherland, a second-year law student at the Howard University School of Law, in Washington, D.C., assisted with the preparation of this post.

[END]

Supreme Court Preview: Wednesday’s Combined Arguments Will Seek to Extend Federal Discovery Law to Arbitration Tribunals

By Tamia Sutherland

The U.S. Supreme Court will continue its two-week, four-argument deep dive into arbitration law and practice on Wednesday morning with an international law case.  It will consider the consolidated arguments in ZF Automotive US Inc. v. Luxshare Ltd., No. 21-401, and AlixPartners LLP v. The Fund for Protection of Investor Rights in Foreign States, No. 21-518.

The issue that the Court has agreed to decide is whether 28 U.S.C. § 1782 can be invoked in international arbitrations to obtain U.S.-style discovery for evidence. The question is whether the statutory language—“foreign or international tribunal”—extends to arbitration panels.

There is a circuit split on the issue, which is detailed at length at John Pinney, “International Arbitration Is Back at the Supreme Court with Today’s Cert Grant on Two Section 1782 Cases,” CPR Speaks (Dec 10, 2021) (available here).

ZF Automotive US, ZF Friedrichshafen AG (ZF AG) is a German corporation. It sold its Global Body Control Systems business unit to respondent Luxshare, a Hong Kong limited liability company. Luxshare alleges that after the deal with ZF AG closed, it learned that ZF US―a Michigan-based automotive parts manufacturer and a subsidiary of ZF AG―fraudulently concealed material facts during the negotiation and diligence process.

The Master Purchase Agreement provided that the transaction is to be governed by German law, and requires that all disputes be resolved “by three (3) arbitrators in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the German Institution of Arbitration (DIS).”

In contrast to the private arbitration of ZF Automotive, AlixPartners focuses on investor-state arbitration, in which one of the parties is the government. In AlixPartners, the respondent Fund now before the Supreme Court is a Russian entity pursuing claims before an ad hoc UNCITRAL-rules arbitral tribunal against Lithuania for investors’ financial losses resulting from the insolvency of a Lithuanian bank.

The Fund brought its § 1782 request for discovery in New York against AlixPartners, a financial consulting firm that had advised the Lithuanian government regarding the bank’s insolvency.

More information on the cases and their parallels to Servotronics, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce, PLC, No. 20-794 , a case dismissed by the Court last September before its hearing in the wake of an arbitration award, is available in John Pinney’s post linked above. [The post also contains links to a CPR amicus brief in AlixPartners authored principally by Pinney urging the Court to take the case, but not in support of either side.]

On Wednesday, the consolidated arguments will include an argument by the U.S. Solicitor General, Elizabeth Barchas Prelogar.  In an amicus brief in support of the petitioners, Prelogar and her office argue that Section 1782 “does not authorize judicial assistance to obtain discovery for use in an arbitration, before a nongovernmental adjudicator, to which the parties consent.”

The amicus defines a foreign or international tribunal under the law as “a governmental adjudicator that exercises authority on behalf of one or more nation-states. It criticizes the approaches of the two federal circuits courts permitting arbitration discovery as “unsound.”

The Court’s calendar with the arguments’ timing is available here; the arguments will be available live, audio-only, via www.supremecourt.gov.

* * *

For an amicus argument against allowing Sec. 1782 discovery, see analysis by Derek T. Ho & Eliana M. Pfeffer, “Discovery in Aid of Foreign Arbitration Proceedings Unfairly Imposes Tremendous Costs on U.S. Companies,” 40 Alternatives 58 (April 2022) (available at https://bit.ly/3JUXs13).

* * *

The author, a second-year law student at the Howard University School of Law, in Washington, D.C., is a CPR 2021-22 intern.

[END]

Supreme Court Reviews the Role of Prejudice to a Party in Determining Arbitration Waiver

By Russ Bleemer

This morning’s U.S. Supreme Court arbitration arguments in Morgan v. Sundance Inc., No. 21-328, reviewed what appeared to be a simple case of whether a plaintiff needs to show prejudice as a pivotal factor in claiming that a defendant has waived its right to arbitration.

But it wasn’t so simple. The arguments ranged over multiple possible standards for including the factor, as well as how to do so if it stays.

The question of whether the Federal Arbitration Act supports prejudice as a factor in waiving the right to arbitration stood next to evaluating the defendant’s actions for waiver in the arguments, with the petitioner soon attacking whether prejudice should be a part of the determination.

The solution likely will be anything but simple. Today expansive arguments lasted nearly an hour and a half–wiith just two attorneys–showed the Court wrestling with the need and content of a prejudice evaluation that has split the circuits.  The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision on review today had held that “[a] party waives its right to arbitration if it: (1) knew of an existing right to arbitration; (2) acted inconsistently with that right; and (3) prejudiced the other party by these inconsistent acts.” 

In its summary ahead of the question presented, the Supreme Court noted that eight other federal courts of appeals and most state supreme include the requirement that the waiving party’s inconsistent acts caused prejudice in the waiver analysis, while three federal courts of appeal, and at least four state supreme courts  “do not include prejudice as an essential element of proving waiver of the right to arbitrate.

With nearly everyone in the courtroom stressing the need for a simple evaluation, both sides missed opportunities to offer one.  Karla Gilbride, co-Director of the Access to Justice Project at Washington, D.C., a nonprofit public interest law firm Public Justice, and attorney for petitioner Robyn Morgan, compellingly noted that the prejudice requirement was “atextual” and “all over the place.”

But she didn’t draw a bright line by noting that employees would be prejudiced by expending time or money on cases where employers delayed their arbitration requests until after they took litigation steps.

Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, a partner in the Washington office of Kirkland & Ellis, facing Justice Neil Gorsuch’s option that the Court eschew a Federal Arbitration Act analysis and send the case back to the lower court for a pure Iowa state law analysis, said that if that path is taken, the Court instead of offering a ruling, should dismiss Morgan entirely as improvidently granted.

And the Court wasn’t helping the advocates by invoking layers of state contract law doctrines, federal statutes, and case interpretations in order to establish a standard for evaluating waiver and whether to include prejudice.

Every member of the Court had pointed questions for the advocates in today’s arguments.  Justice Clarence Thomas didn’t participate, however; the Court announced Sunday that he had been hospitalized with an infection, but it noted this morning that he would participate in the case based on the filings and the arguments’ transcript.

Petitioner attorney Gilbride opened, with an argument that centered around the case issue of whether the the Eighth Circuit ruling favored arbitration, in violation of AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 339 (2011), and FAA Sec. 2, which says that arbitration contracts are “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”

She maintained that the prejudice requirement has become specific to arbitration. She said there was a lot of discussion in the briefs about waiver and default, but the Eighth Circuit should have applied generally applicable Iowa law.  Then, she explained, if it found waiver, the court would still have to assess if the actions of employer Sundance, which owns Taco Bell franchises, were in default of proceeding.

“So whether Sundance’s actions constituted default is a secondary question,” said Gilbride, “not a replacement for the first-order waiver inquiry.”

Gilbride was moving from her FAA Sec. 2 analysis to FAA Sec. 3, and urging the Court to adopt a two-step analysis for evaluating waiving a right to arbitration. She was countering an argument made by Paul Clement in his Court briefs, who maintained that FAA Sec. 3 could be dispositive.

FAA Sec. 3 deals with motions to stay proceedings in favor of arbitration:

If any suit or proceeding be brought in any of the courts of the United States upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for such arbitration, the court in which such suit is pending, upon being satisfied that the issue involved in such suit or proceeding is referable to arbitration under such an agreement, shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement, providing the applicant for the stay is not in default in proceeding with such arbitration.

“Prejudice,” declared Gilbride, “has no part to play in either of these inquiries.”

Under initial questioning from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Elena Kagan, Gilbride offered that the Court could remand for analysis of Iowa’s generally applicable waiver doctrines, but instead the Eighth Circuit looked at federal law and erroneously required prejudice. See Morgan v. Sundance Inc., 992 F.3d 711 (8th Cir. 2021) (available at https://bit.ly/3nqL7sJ). She conceded that prejudice could be a part of the state contract law, and that each case needed individual determination at the trial court level. 

At the same time, she noted that there could be a statutory default under federal law in FAA Sec. 3.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. pressed Gilbride on how state law would affect the analysis if it in some way provided something different for arbitration cases than for other contract cases. She warned that arbitration-specific standards wouldn’t likely survive in analyzing three hypothetical Alito treatments of state law.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Gilbride her analysis was confusing, with the FAA Sec. 3 default meshing with FAA Sec. 4 on federal court jurisdiction over parties who refuse to honor arbitration agreements for purposes of compelling the process. Sotomayor appeared uncomfortable with the need to find a federal law default standard under Sec. 3 after finding the state law waiver standard needed for Sec. 2 in Gilbride’s sequential analysis proposal.

Sotomayor summarized, noting, “Some of my colleagues are troubled by the fact that states differ in how they define waiver.  I am troubled by the fact that the circuits define prejudice in different ways.”

At that point, Gilbride offered a bright-line standard. She noted that the requirement is “atextual” and not applied uniformly. “A presumption that a party should raise their defense of arbitration . . . by the time they file their first responsive pleading, by the time of their answer . . . before their answer if they file a motion,” she said, “that would be presumptively enough to get someone not to be in default in proceeding.”

The analysis Gilbride proposed, countered Chief Justice Roberts, will “increase the complexity and delay in arbitration proceedings.  . . . [It is] creating a whole new battleground before you even get to arbitration about whether or not there’s been . . waiver under state law. It seems quite contrary to the policy behind the FAA.”

Gilbride quickly countered that the prejudice requirement “actually increases delay and increases the sort of skirmishing in court . . . before anyone resorts to the arbitral forum that the FAA was designed eliminate.

In response to a comment by Justice Stephen G. Breyer that delay cases are fact intensive, Public Justice’s Karla Gilbride insisted that the analysis isn’t “any more complicated than questions about . . . who is bound by the contract or whether a particular dispute fall within the terms of the contract.  . . . State courts and federal courts applying state law answer those questions . . . within the parameters of the FAA all the time . . . without anything seeming to have ground to a halt.”

* * *

Sundance’s Paul Clement said that his client wasn’t in default under FAA Sec. 3, because there was no violation of a contract or a law. “[U]under all relevant state law doctrines, one has to show prejudice before a contractual right is lost because you litigated or waited too long to assert it,” he said at the outset, adding, “The most straightforward way to affirm the decision below is to apply Section 3 and its stay absent default direction.”

Client Sundance, Clement explained, moved under FAA Sec. 3 to stay the litigation, and “it is not in violation of any contractual deadline, any court rule, or any other legal obligation.”

He said the problem wasn’t a waiver by the respondent of its right to arbitrate.  “[W]hat is at issue is simply not asserting a right soon enough,” he said.

Chief Justice Roberts was skeptical, asking, “Waiver plays no role in regard–evaluating that situation at all?”

Clement said that in the absence of filing deadlines, courts will assess a variety of factors–including prejudice to the other side.  

Justice Neil Gorsuch pressed him on assessing a waiver in the absence of an intentional act, and Clement said that the lower court really meant a forefeiture. 

At that point, Gorsuch suggested it would make sense to send the case back for that state law analysis stating that the Eighth Circuit made a mistake using a federal law analysis.  That’s when Clement said that the Court should dismiss the case instead.

“The Eighth Circuit wasn’t saying this is absolutely waiver and ‘that’s why we’re applying this three-factor test,’” explained Clement.

The circuit court, he continued, “applied the three-factor test presumably as–if you go back in their case law . . .– as a gloss on the [FAA Sec. 3] statutory phrase ‘in default.’ And [the appeals panel] said, as a general matter, ‘This is when it’s too late to invoke your right to arbitrate, and we have a three-factor test, and the plaintiff in this case fails under the third factor.’ Importantly, [the Eighth Circuit] didn’t even definitively resolve the second factor [acting inconsistently with the right to arbitration], which is the only thing that actually even goes to an inconsistency that possibly could get to an implied waiver. And there’s not a hint in the decision that they thought they were talking about the explicit waiver that your question alludes to.”

Clement emphasized under tough questioning from Justices Breyer and Kagan that there was no dispute about the arbitration agreement’s existence, and attempts to resolve state law issues preliminarily under such circumstances belong with arbitrators, at one point invoking to Breyer the opinion the justice wrote on arbitrator versus court determinations in Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., 537 U.S. 79 (2002) (available at https://bit.ly/2yiejeh).

“The arbitration agreement is valid,” said Clement. “Nobody questions that.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked whether the failure to raise the arbitration defense to a court action in the first responsive pleading could be a review standard for waiver, but Clement rejected it. He said it wasn’t fair to his client. “[If you want to write an opinion in my client’s favor and suggest to the rules committee that they amend the rules to give clear notice to parties, then I could live with that.”

Clement followed up when Kavanaugh pressed further to note that the line drawn by courts generally isn’t the first responsive pleading, but when there already has been extensive discovery.

Kagan returned to Clement’s point that missing a deadline would satisfy FAA Sec. 3’s requirement that a stay wouldn’t be issued if the party asking for the stay was in default. “Where does this federal common law rule come from as to what counts as default?” she asked.

“It’s a gloss on the statutory phrase ‘in default,’” responded the former solicitor general, “and I think everybody agrees ‘default’ means you violated a legal obligation.”

Justice Sotomayor recounted Sundance’s moves in the matter, and maintained that the company intentionally waived arbitration to see how it would do in litigation, and then reversed course.  Clement resisted, but noted also countered that the strategy was sound and adhered to its arbitration contract.  

He responded:

I think what the parties bargained for here was not just arbitration but bilateral arbitration. And when the other side decides not just to violate the arbitration agreement but to seek a nationwide collective action, I think my client is perfectly within its rights, and it’s what I would advise my client to do under the circumstances[–]don’t make a motion to compel arbitration because you might get a motion to compel nationwide collective arbitration, and pretty much every defendant on the planet agrees that’s the worst of both worlds. So you wait.

Sotomayor said that Sundance should have raised that objection in its motion to compel.

“I suppose we could have,” responded Kirkland’s Paul Clement, “and with the benefit of that additional advice, maybe that’s what I’d tell my clients to do. But I’d still say, OK, at worst, we failed to make a motion. At worst, we’re in the realm of forfeiture, and we still have the ability to make this motion under [FAA] Sec. 3.”

The case is expected to be decided before the Court’s current term ends in June.  The audio of Supreme Court oral arguments, as well as transcripts, can be found here. For more background on Morgan, see Russ Bleemer, “The Supreme Court’s Six-Pack Is Set to Refine Arbitration Practice,” 40 Alternatives 17 (February 2022) (available here), and Mark Kantor, “U.S. Supreme Court Adds an Arbitration Issue: Is Proof of Prejudice Needed to Defeat a Motion to Compel?” CPR Speaks (Nov. 15, 2021) (available here).

* * *

The author edits Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation for CPR at altnewsletter.com.

[END]

#CPRAM22 Highlights: Hot Topics/Initiatives in ADR

By Andrew Ling

Lucila Hemmingsen, a partner in the New York office of King & Spalding practicing international commercial and investment arbitration and public international law, moderated a third-day CPR Annual Meeting panel on cutting-edge topics in ADR. The panel focused on arbitration cases pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, new arbitration legislation, an initiative to reduce arbitration’s carbon footprint, and diversity in ADR.

Hemmingsen was joined at the March 4 online #CPRAM22 session by three panelists:

  • Angela Downes, who is assistant director of experiential education and professor of practice law at University of North Texas Dallas College of Law;
  • Benjamin Graham, an associate at Williams & Connolly, in Washington, D.C., who focuses on complex commercial litigation and international arbitration. He has represented sovereign states and multinational corporations in investment-treaty disputes before ICSID and commercial disputes before leading arbitral institutions, and
  • Rachel Gupta, a mediator and arbitrator with her own New York City-based ADR practice, Gupta Dispute Resolutions. She is a mediator for state and federal court ADR panels and is an arbitrator and panelist for CPR, the American Arbitration Association, and FINRA.

Graham and Downes began the discussion by reviewing arbitration cases pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Downes highlighted Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc., No. 19-963, in which the question concerned whether a delegation provision in an arbitration agreement constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties intend the arbitral tribunal to decide questions of arbitrability.

Traditionally, courts are presumed to decide whether a dispute is subject to arbitration, phrased as the “question of arbitrability.” But in recent Supreme Court decisions, the Court has looked at the parties’ agreement and allowed the arbitral tribunal to decide questions of arbitrability if there is clear and unmistakable evidence indicating parties’ intent to delegate the authority to arbitrators.

Panelist Angela Downes said she views the fundamental Henry Schein issue as the drafting of the arbitration agreement, noting that disputes often arise when the agreement or provision lacks clarity. She pointed out that the case, which was dismissed a month after the oral arguments in January 2021 in a one-line opinion in which the Court said that it had “improvidently granted” review in the case, leave the status of delegation agreement still unsettled enough for potential future litigation.

Rachel Gupta then led the discussion on recent legislation on arbitration, focusing on H.R. 4445, titled Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021.

The panel discussed the Congressional backdrop to the bill, which was signed into by President Biden on March 3, the day before the panel discussion. In many employment contracts, employees have been bound by arbitration agreements and prohibited from bringing sexual harassment claims to a court. Arbitration proceedings are generally confidential, and the amount of an arbitral award tends to be lower than the damages rendered by a court. And when parties settle the dispute, employees are usually required to sign non-disclosure agreements. As a result, victims of sexual harassment are often silenced.

There are four amendments to the Federal Arbitration Act. First, it does not categorically ban arbitration agreements between employers and employees, but it allows plaintiffs to bring sexual harassment claims to courts. Second, plaintiffs have the option to bring the case individually or on behalf of a class, even if the employer’s arbitration agreement prohibits class arbitration. Third, FAA applicability will be decided by a federal court, not the arbitral tribunal. Finally, the amendments are retroactive.

Gupta pointed out that the bill does not address non-disclosure agreements. Angela Downes said she believed the omission was intended as a compromise to gain bipartisan support for the bill. In addition, many lawmakers and sexual harassment victims view binding arbitration agreements as the cause of the “broken system,” not the non-disclosure agreements.

The new law, the panel suggested, could drastically change employment arbitration practices. As Rachel Gupta commented, it will be interesting to observe if lawmakers intend to make similar amendments to other areas of arbitration, such as consumer class arbitration.

On reducing arbitration’s carbon footprint, Gupta first discussed the Campaign for Greener Arbitrations, founded by U.K. arbitrator Lucy Greenwood in 2019. The Campaign developed a set of Green Protocols to reduce the environmental impact of international arbitrations, such as using electronic correspondence and organizing virtual conferences.

Moderator Hemmingsen shared several changes in international arbitration practice: sending iPads to arbitrators instead of papers; reducing in-person meetings, and using advanced technology to take construction-site photos instead of traveling. She also predicted that more conferences and hearings would be held virtually.

The panel concluded by discussing diversity and inclusion among arbitrators and mediators. There have been several initiatives on appointing diverse neutrals and offering training and networking opportunities, such as the Ray Corollary Initiative, the JAMS Diversity Fellowship Program, New York Diversity and Inclusion Neutral Directory, the ADR Inclusion Network, and the Equal Representation in Arbitration pledge. Many arbitral institutions have taken action to place more women in arbitration panels. And CPR incorporated a “Young Lawyer” Rule in its Administered, Non-Administered and International Arbitration Rules to increase opportunities for junior lawyers to take a more active role in arbitration hearings (see Rule 12.5 in the rules available at https://www.cpradr.org/resource-center/rules/arbitration).

The panelists agreed that promoting diversity among arbitrators and mediators must be a concerted effort from ADR providers, arbitrators, law firms, and clients. Progress in diversity and inclusion is needed to grow the profession and benefit the next generation of ADR practitioners.

* * *

The author, a third-year law student at the University of Texas School of Law, in Austin, Texas, is a CPR 2022 Spring Intern.

[END]

US Supreme Court to Review Whether Private Attorney General Action Can Be Waived by an Arbitration Agreement

By Mark Kantor

Continuing its focus on arbitration, the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday granted certiorari in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana, No. 20-1573, where the question presented is whether the Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcement of an arbitration agreement that waives a signatory’s ability to bring a labor law claim on behalf of California labor law agencies in court pursuant to California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

The official issue presented:

Whether the Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that an employee cannot raise representative claims, including under the California Private Attorneys General Act.

PAGA enables an individual employee to seek a court judgment for breach of California labor laws as a “private attorney general” on behalf of the state of California. 

An employee bringing a PAGA action does so as the “proxy” or “agent” of California’s labor law enforcement agencies, who are the real parties in interest.  A successful employee-plaintiff may obtain civil penalties under PAGA for violations committed against similarly placed employees, Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(g)(1), just as the state could if it brought the enforcement action directly.   Civil penalties recovered in a PAGA representative action must be allocated 75% to the state enforcement agency and 25% to the aggrieved employee. Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(i).

California state courts, and federal courts applying the California law, have held that a PAGA representative claim in court cannot be overcome by an arbitration agreement.  Employers consider that jurisprudence to be contrary to U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

The Supreme Court will now take up that issue for review.

The Court’s docket page for Viking River Cruises with filings is linked above. The Scotusblog page containing the lower court opinion and amicus briefs can be found here.

* * *

It has been a busy week for arbitration at the Supreme Court, and with recent moves, the Court has provided itself a full arbitration docket, with six separate cases pending in five matters, only one of which has been argued, as the others await argument dates.

Last Friday, the Court accepted two cases and consolidated them into one argument, date to be announced, on a long-running issue about the reach of a federal law that provides discovery in foreign matters. Details on the Dec. 10 cert grant on the consolidated cases, which will determine whether the law applies to discovery in international arbitration matters, can be found at John Pinney, “International Arbitration Is Back at the Supreme Court with Today’s Cert Grant on Two Section 1782 Cases,” CPR Speaks (Dec. 10) (available here).

The Court on Friday also accepted a case on  Federal Arbitration Act Sec. 1 that will examine the extent of the exception from the FAA involving workers in interstate commerce. For details on that new case, as well as a roundup of the six arbitration cases now at the U.S. Supreme Court, see Russ Bleemer, “Court Adds a Third Arbitration Case in Friday’s Cert Granted Order List,” CPR Speaks (Dec. 10) (available here).

* * *

Mark Kantor is a member of CPR-DR’s Panel of Distinguished Neutrals.  Until he retired from Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, he was a partner in the firm’s Corporate and Project Finance Groups.  He currently serves as an arbitrator and mediator.  He teaches as an Adjunct Professor at the Georgetown University Law Center (Recipient, Fahy Award for Outstanding Adjunct Professor).  He also is Editor-in-Chief of the online journal Transnational Dispute Management.  He is a frequent contributor to CPR Speaks, and this post originally was circulated to a private list serv and adapted with the author’s permission.

[END]

International Arbitration Is Back at the Supreme Court with Today’s Cert Grant on Two Section 1782 Cases

By John Pinney

The U.S. Supreme Court this afternoon granted certiorari on two Section 1782 cases, ZF Automotive US Inc. v. Luxshare Ltd., No. 21-401, and AlixPartners LLP v. The Fund for Protection of Investor Rights in Foreign States, No. 21-518.

By accepting these cases, the nation’s top Court has again agreed to decide whether 28 U.S.C. § 1782 can be invoked by parties in international arbitrations to obtain U.S.-style discovery to obtain evidence for use in such proceedings.

It is the second time this year that the Court has taken on the issue. Today’s cert grants follow the voluntary dismissal in September just six days before the scheduled argument for Servotronics, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce, PLC, No. 20-794, a case that the court had agreed to hear on the same issue last March.  For details on the dismissal, see Bryanna Rainwater, “Case Dismissed: Supreme Court Lightens Its Arbitration Load as Servotronics Is Removed from 2021-22 Docket,” CPR Speaks (Sept. 8) (available here).

As it had done in Servotronics, the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution, which publishes CPR Speaks, filed an amicus brief in support of the AlixPartners certiorari petition. [Editor’s note: John Pinney, author of this CPR Speaks blog post, also is counsel of record on both amicus briefs on CPR’s behalf. See the credit line for links below.]

In its order granting cert on the two cases, the Court formally granted CPR’s leave to file an amicus brief in AlixPartners. The Court consolidated the two cases and allotted an hour for an oral argument. The order is available here.  The case has not yet been scheduled; schedules for winter and spring 2022 argument dates in the current 2021-2022 term have yet to be released, and the case could be added before the Court’s year ends in June.

The specific issue before the Supreme Court is whether the critical phrase in § 1782, “foreign or international tribunal,” includes international arbitral tribunals. As readers who have been following the cases addressing § 1782 over the past two years know—see links to key CPR Speaks blog posts below–there is a circuit split regarding the applicability of § 1782 for private international arbitrations. The Second, Fifth and Seventh U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have held that an international arbitral tribunal is not a “tribunal” within the meaning of the statute, while the Fourth and Sixth Circuits have decided it is.

There was widespread disappointment in the international arbitration community when Servotronics was officially dismissed in late September after a party requested the dismissal shortly after an award was issued in the underlying London arbitration that mooted the § 1782 case before the Supreme Court.

The ZF Automotive case is virtually identical to Servotronics in that it involves a private international arbitration. It is noteworthy, however, that the ZF Automotive petition was brought before judgment out of the Sixth Circuit, one the two circuit courts allowing § 1782 discovery for a private international arbitral tribunal.

On the other hand, AlixPartners presents a significantly different issue than the Servotronics matter.

AlixPartners arises not from a private international arbitration but instead from an investment case brought under the Russian-Lithuanian bilateral investment treaty. The respondent Fund now before the Supreme Court is a Russian entity pursuing claims before an ad hoc UNCITRAL-rules arbitral tribunal against Lithuania for investors’ financial losses resulting from the insolvency of the Lithuanian bank.

The Fund brought its § 1782 request for discovery in New York against AlixPartners, a financial consulting firm that had advised the Lithuanian government regarding the bank’s insolvency. The case comes to the Supreme Court after the Second Circuit, applying criteria established in a recent case that denied discovery for a case before a private international arbitration tribunal–see In re Hanwei Guo for an Order to take Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782, 965 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2020), as amended (July 9, 2020) (available at https://bit.ly/3IxxzUK)–allowed discovery for the investment case because of the degree of governmental involvement due to the investment treaty. 

For more on ZF Automotive, see Bryanna Rainwater, “The Law on Evidence for Foreign Arbitrations Returns to the Supreme Court,” CPR Speaks (Oct. 22, 202) (available here). For a CPR YouTube discussion of the cases and two other pending U.S. Supreme Court arbitration matters, see “The Latest #SCOTUS #Arbitration: Process ‘Preference’; Int’l #Discovery; Federal Courts’ Arb #Jurisdiction,” CPR Speaks (Nov. 23) (available here).

By taking both ZF Automotive and AlixPartners, the Supreme Court will now decide the scope of § 1782 for both private international and investment arbitrations.

* * *

John Pinney is counsel to Graydon Head & Ritchey in Cincinnati. On CPR’s behalf, he acted as counsel of record in an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to accept the AlixPartners case, but not taking a position on behalf of either party. Details on the brief can be found on CPR Speaks here. His AlixPartners brief on CPR’s behalf can be found at on the Supreme Court docket page linked at the top or directly at https://bit.ly/3pzZpHj. Earlier this year, he filed a similar friend-of-the-Court brief asking the Supreme Court to accept the Servotronics case, which was accepted and later dismissed ahead of a scheduled argument. Details on the dismissal can be found in the CPR Speaks Sept. 8 posting cited above, and here. He discusses the Servotronics brief in a CPR YouTube analysis here. His Servotronics brief on CPR’s behalf can be found on the Supreme Court docket page linked at the top of this post or directly at https://bit.ly/3Ez58U4.

[END]

The Latest #SCOTUS #Arbitration: Process ‘Preference’; Int’l #Discovery; Federal Courts’ Arb #Jurisdiction

CPR presents on YouTube linked and embedded above a new discussion on the current U.S. Supreme Court hot arbitration topics.  

The discussion is moderated by Russ Bleemer, editor of Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation (http://altnewsletter.com, and for CPR members at www.cpradr.org/news-publications/alternatives) (@altnewsletter)), who is joined by Angela Downes, Assistant Director of Experiential Education and Professor of Practice Law at the University of North Texas-Dallas College of Law; independent Dallas attorney-arbitrator Richard Faulkner, and arbitration advocate Philip J. Loree Jr., who heads the Loree Law Firm in New York (@PhilLoreeJr). 

Here are the matters discussed, and links on this CPR Speaks blog to details on the cases and potential cases along with resources including links to lower court opinions and briefs.

  1. Morgan v. Sundance Inc., No. 21-328, an employment case on the extent to which a federal court may defer to an arbitration agreement, which the nation’s top Court agreed to hear last week. For details, see Mark Kantor, “U.S. Supreme Court Adds an Arbitration Issue: Is Proof of Prejudice Needed to Defeat a Motion to Compel?” CPR Speaks (Nov. 15) (available here).
  2. The Court has scheduled two cases involving the reach of 28 U.S.C § 1782 for a Dec. 3 conference that will determine whether it should hear the matters or let lower court opinions stand.  The cases examine whether the statute, which authorizes “any interested person” in a proceeding before a “foreign or international tribunal” to ask for and receive discovery from a person in the United States, covers international arbitration tribunals. The cases, AlixPartners LLP v. The Fund for Protection of Investors’ Rights in Foreign States, No. 21-518, and ZF Automotive US Inc. v. Luxshare Ltd., No. 21-401, are discussed at Bryanna Rainwater, “The Law on Evidence for Foreign Arbitrations Returns to the Supreme Court,” CPR Speaks (Oct. 22, 202) (available here).  CPR has filed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to accept and decide the AlixPartners case; the NYC-based nonprofit which publishes this blog did not take a position in the case.  The details on the filing can be found at “CPR Asks Supreme Court to Consider Another Foreign Tribunal Evidence Case,” CPR Speaks (Nov. 12) (available here) (containing information and links to CPR’s previous amicus brief in Servotronics v. Rolls Royce PLC, No. 20-794, another Section 1782 case that the Supreme Court dismissed in September and removed from the Court’s October argument calendar).
  3. Badgerow v. Walters, No. 20-1143, an employment discrimination case that dives into the jurisdiction of federal courts under Federal Arbitration Act sections on enforcing and overturning arbitration awards.  The case was most recently discussed on CPR Speaks at Russ Bleemer, “Supreme Court Hears Badgerow, and Leans to Allowing Federal Courts to Broadly Decide on Arbitration Awards and Challenges,” CPR Speaks (Nov 2) (available here).

The video embedded above can be found on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw8ps4vtTfs.

[END]

CPR Asks Supreme Court to Consider Another Foreign Tribunal Evidence Case

The International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case on the extent of a law allowing U.S. federal courts to grant requests from foreign tribunals for discovery on U.S. persons as defined under the statute.  

The question in AlixPartners LLP, et al. v. The Fund for Protection of Investors’ Rights in Foreign States, No. 21-518, is whether the law on international tribunals applies to arbitration panel requests.

It’s the second Supreme Court amicus request by CPR in 2021.

CPR didn’t take a position in its Monday amicus filing, but instead asked the Court to hear the matter and clear up a federal circuit split over whether overseas arbitration tribunals may obtain requests for discovery under the law as, say, a foreign court can do.

The reach of 28 U.S.C § 1728 has become a hot topic in federal appellate courts over the past two years.  It was thought to be nearing a conclusion when the nation’s top Court granted cert on the issue in Servotronics Inc. v. Rolls-Royce PLC, et al., No. 20-794.

But while the parties waited for the October Court argument date, they also proceeded in arbitration.  After a July award by a London tribunal, the Court granted the parties’ request to dismiss the case in September, and it was removed from the docket. For more on Servotronics’ details and history, see Bryanna Rainwater, “Case Dismissed: Supreme Court Lightens Its Arbitration Load as Servotronics Is Removed from 2021-22 Docket,” CPR Speaks (Sept. 8) (available here).

CPR last January also had filed an amicus brief, linked at the CPR Speaks post, urging the Court to accept Servotronics. That brief also can be found at the Court’s docket page here.

CPR’s motion for leave to file the AlixPartners amicus brief, as well as the brief itself, is posted on the Supreme Court’s docket page for the case, linked above, and can be accessed directly here. The matter is expected to be considered by the Court at a conference before year end.

Attorneys at Cincinnati’s Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP prepared and filed the brief on CPR’s behalf.  The counsel of record on the filing is John B. Pinney, and the attorneys on the brief are Roula Allouch and John C. Greiner.

For coverage of CPR’s Alixpartners amicus filing argument, see Victoria McKenzie, “Arbitration Group Urges High Court To Define ‘Tribunal,’” Law360 (Nov. 9, 2021) (available here).

[END]

Roundup: Four New Arbitration Petitions Under Consideration at the U.S. Supreme Court

By Mylene Chan

Four recent petitions for writs of certiorari pending before the U.S. Supreme Court raise a number of interesting arbitration issues. While the Court may decline to hear these cases, they are worth following because they could help to define the scope of arbitration in both consumer and commercial contexts.

The cases are being briefed and will be scheduled for conferences.  If accepted, they likely would be argued in the 2021-2022 Court term beginning Oct. 4.

The Court already has two cases that will be argued in the new fall term, and which are awaiting hearing dates:

* * *

Here are the cases the Court will soon be considering:

Shivkov v. Artex Risk Solutions Inc., No. 20-1313

Shivkov centers on the availability of class arbitrations. In the case, the plaintiffs contracted with Artex and TSA Holdings LLC to set up and manage business entities—captive insurance vehicles the small business owner-plaintiffs entered into with the defendants–that the U.S. Internal Revenue Service later determined were illegal tax shelters.  The plaintiffs alleged the captive insurance schemes were “mass-marketed fraud” that caused the plaintiffs to be liable for back taxes, penalties, interest and “significant fees.”

The plaintiffs filed a class action against the defendants, alleging a variety of Arizona state and federal claims for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, conspiracy and related claims.  Relying on an arbitration clause in the agreements, the defendants moved to compel arbitration.

The Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals ordered individual arbitrations of the plaintiffs’ claims. The appeals court first rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that the defendants had a fiduciary duty to explain the arbitration clause to the plaintiffs, that the arbitration clause did not survive termination of the contracts, and that the arbitration clause did not cover all of the plaintiffs’ claims.

The appeals court also found that class arbitration was unavailable.  In so ruling, the appellate panel held that the availability of class arbitration is a gateway issue for courts–not arbitrators–to decide that the arbitration agreements did not provide for class arbitration. The Ninth Circuit also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the inclusion of the American Arbitration Association as the default arbitration method in the agreements was the equivalent of incorporating AAA rules about class arbitrability by reference into the agreements.

On March 17, the plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari and presented two questions: (1) Whether an agreement that specifies arbitration before the AAA as the default dispute resolution method also must specifically mention the AAA rules to avoid being considered ambiguous about whether the parties intended to apply the AAA rules; and (2) Whether the availability of class arbitration is a matter for an arbitrator to decide, or for a court to decide.

* * *

Eni USA Gas Marketing LLC v. Gulf LNG Energy LLC, No. 20-1462

The next case involves an attempt to use arbitration proceedings as a means of collateral attack on a previous arbitration award. In the case, Gulf entered into a Terminal Use Agreement (TUA) with Eni whereby Gulf would construct a natural gas terminal and Eni would use the terminal to deliver natural gas. The TUA contained a broad arbitration clause.

Eni initiated arbitration, alleging breach of contract, and arguing that the TUA was void because of unforeseen changes in the market. The arbitration tribunal found that the TUA had terminated and ordered Eni to pay Gulf for the value of Gulf’s partial performance under the TUA.

Eni then filed a second arbitration alleging a breach of contract claim left undecided from the first arbitration and misrepresentation. Gulf moved to enjoin Eni from pursuing the second arbitration. Eni argued that an arbitrator–rather than a court–should decide whether the first arbitration award precludes the second arbitration.

The Delaware Supreme Court enjoined Eni from pursuing the second arbitration. The Court reasoned that when a party files a second proceeding attacking a prior arbitration award, it circumvents the contractual  Federal Arbitration Act review procedure. The Court held that courts may intervene in a party’s attempt to seek arbitration when the objective is to rectify a prior unfavorable arbitration award by arbitrating claims in new separate arbitration proceedings. 

On April 15, Eni filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court presenting the issue of whether the FAA permits a court to refuse to enforce an arbitration agreement delegating all questions, including a question of arbitrability, to an arbitrator where a party contends that the claim sought to be arbitrated represents a “collateral attack” on a prior arbitration award.

* * *

HRB Tax Group v. Snarr, No. 20-1570

This case looks at the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act preemption of state law in cases where plaintiffs seek a remedy of a public injunction. In HRB Tax Group v. Snarr, the plaintiffs sought to stop their tax service provider from continuing business practices they alleged are fraudulent.

HRB and the plaintiffs entered into agreements in which HRB offered the plaintiffs services in filing tax returns. The service agreements required all disputes arising from these agreements to be resolved through individual arbitration.

The plaintiffs, customers of H&R Block’s accounting services, alleged that the marketing of HRB’s tax filing services violated California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, and Unfair Competition Law. They filed a class action suit against HRB and sought a public injunction enjoining HRB’s alleged misleading web services and advertising.

HRB moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the Federal Arbitration Act, which provides that arbitration agreements are presumptively valid, preempts McGill v. Citibank, N.A. 393 P.3d 85 (2017) (which held that a contract is unenforceable when it entirely waives the right to seek public injunctive relief under consumer protection statutes). 

The Ninth Circuit denied HRB’s motion to compel arbitration. The court reasoned that HRB’s argument had been foreclosed by Blair v. Rent-A-Center Inc., 928 F.3d 819 (2019) (holding that the FAA does not preempt McGill.)

HRB’s May 10 U.S. Supreme Court cert petition asks whether California’s public policy rule declining to enforce agreements for individualized arbitration whenever a plaintiff seeks a public injunction is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.

* * *

Viking River Cruises v. Moriana, No. 20-1573

The fourth case raises questions about the applicability of agreements for bilateral arbitration to claims brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). In Viking River Cruises, aggrieved employees sought relief from an international cruise line.

Original plaintiff Angie Moriana agreed upon joining Viking as a sales representative to an arbitration agreement providing that any employment-related disputes would be arbitrated. The agreement also required Moriana to waive all rights to bring a class, collective, representative, or private attorney general action in the employment contract.

Moriana filed suit against Viking on behalf of the state and all other similarly situated employees alleging various California Labor Code violations under PAGA.

Viking moved to compel individualized arbitration of Moriana’s PAGA claims, arguing that Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis 138 S.Ct. 1612 (2018), validates private predispute waivers of such claims. Viking claimed that Epic Systems overruled Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC  59 Cal. 4th 348 (2014), a California Supreme Court decision holding that arbitration agreements that waived the right to bring PAGA actions are unenforceable.

The California Court of Appeal denied Viking’s motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that the real party in a PAGA claim is the state and Moriana was not acting as an agent of the state when she bound herself to arbitrate. The court  explained that Iskanian remains good law because Epic Systems differs fundamentally from a PAGA claim. Epic Systems addressed the enforceability of an individualized arbitration requirement against challenges that such enforcement violated the National Labor Relations Act.

Viking filed a petition for writ of certiorari on May 10. The issue the Court will decide to consider is whether the Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that an employee cannot raise representative claims, including under PAGA.

* * *

The author, an LLM candidate at Yeshiva University’s Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York, is a 2021 CPR Summer Intern.