|
Upcoming Events
| | View the American Arbitration University Course Calendar
CLICK HERE!
Sept. 12-15, 2012
Association for Conflict Resolution 12th Annual Conference
New Orleans, LA
Oct. 19 - 20, 2012 Health Law Arbitration Training
Hamline University School of Business
1600 Utica Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55416
For more information, CLICK HERE!
|
|
|
|
FINRA New Simplified Arbitration Rules in Effect
| |
Effective Date: July 23, 2012
Executive Summary
FINRA Rules 12800 and 13800 (Simplified Arbitration) of the Customer and Industry Codes of Arbitration Procedure (Codes) provide streamlined arbitration procedures for claimants seeking damages of $25,000 or less. The SEC approved amendments to the Codes to raise the dollar limit for simplified arbitration from $25,000 to $50,000.
To View Regulatory Notice 12-30, Click Here
Notice 12-30 Click Here
|
Second Circuit finds that petition to compel arbitration cannot be voluntarily dismissed
| |
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the Southern District of New York's vacatur of a petitioner's voluntary notice of dismissal of a petition to compel arbitration. Petitioner and respondent had entered into an arbitration agreement and petitioner had filed a petition to compel arbitration. After some litigation, petitioner filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Second Circuit found that the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure allowing for voluntary dismissal (Rule 41) did not apply to petitions to compel arbitration and that the petitioner lacked the right to voluntarily and unilaterally dismiss the petition for arbitration. Additionally, the Second Circuit found that allowing parties to voluntarily dismiss petitions to compel arbitration would inappropriately expand the voluntary dismissal right, as the Rule allows one party to curtail the other's right of voluntary dismissal by filing an answer or a motion for summary judgment, but under the Federal Arbitration Act, a respondent's option is limited: he can file a motion for summary judgment, but not an answer, in response to a motion to compel arbitration.
ISC Holding AG v. Nobel Biocare Finance AG, Nos. 10-4867-cv(L), 11-239-cv(CON) (2d Cir. July 25, 2012).
|
|
A well-drafted arbitration agreement can apply to disputes arising before parties' relationship and to disputes with successors
| |
Three federal circuit courts have recently looked at the shelf-life of an  arbitration agreement. Can it apply even before the contract is effective? What about after a successor takes over the relationship? What if one party unilaterally changes its terms? The answer is that a properly worded arbitration agreement can apply in all those instances, with appropriate notice.
In Gove v. Career Systems Development Corp., ___ F.3d ___, 2012 WL 2892472 (1st Cir. July 17, 2012), a pregnant woman applied for a job and was rejected. After she sued in federal court alleging gender discrimination, the defendant moved to compel arbitration based on a provision in the job application stating that her "submission of this Employment Application constitutes [her] agreement that the procedure set forth in the Arbitration Agreement will also be used to resolve all pre-employment disputes." The district court denied the motion to compel and the First Circuit affirmed that ruling.
For more information, Click Here! |
|
Award upheld against football player's workers' compensation claim for failure to support application of state law
|  A former professional football player, whose National Football League employment contract waived application of California workers' compensation law, sought to vacate an arbitration award that denied the player's pursuit of California workers' compensation benefits for injuries that allegedly occurred over the course of the player's football career. The court rejected the player's arguments that the award constituted a violation of California and federal labor policy, and that the award reflected a manifest disregard of California law. The player's injuries, the court explained, could not be sufficiently tied to events occurring in California. Without a "clear" indication that a California court would apply that state's law, the award could not be deemed to violate California and federal labor policy, which in turn precluded the player's contention that the award violated the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause. Matthews v. National Football League Management Council, Case No. 11-5186 (9th Cir. Aug. 6, 2012).
|
|
Amex seeks Supreme Court review of class arbitration waiver decision
|  American Express Co. ("AMEX") filed a petition for certiorari on July 30, 2012 after a Second Circuit panel ruled for the third time that the company could not enforce an arbitration agreement containing a class action waiver against a putative class of merchants who pursued antitrust claims. American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, No. 12-133. The Second Circuit had held that the class action waiver contained in AMEX's Card Acceptance Agreement-which tied the acceptance of its credit card to its higher-rate charge card-was unenforceable because it "would effectively preclude any action seeking to vindicate the statutory rights asserted by the plaintiffs," whose antitrust claims would not be economically rational to pursue individually. The Second Circuit had based its holding on an affidavit from plaintiffs' expert showing that the several hundred thousand dollars of costs would far exceed the $5,000 anticipated recovery for each plaintiff. The Circuit, though divided, declined to hear the case en banc. (See our blog posts from April 4 and June 5, 2012.)
|
|
|
In an effort to recognize the specialization in the ADR community, we are creating 3 separate newsletters broadly covering these areas: Mediation - Arbitration - International ADR.
A newsletter focused in one of those areas will be sent out bi-monthly. In order for you to subscribe to as many types of newsletters that fit your particular practice/interests, please click on the Update Profile/Email Address link at the bottom of this email. From there you will be able to select which newsletters you wish to receive or if you would like to opt out all together.
Thank you for reading my newsletter, and as always, if you have any questions on any of the articles listed, do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Thomas Valenti
Thomas P. Valenti, P.C.
300 N. LaSalle St., Suite 4925
Chicago, IL 60654-3406
T: 312-803-0472
F: 888-667-2485
|
|
|
