SCOTUS to decide Coinbase Arbitrability

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court granted cert and agreed to hear a cryptocurrency case that would move a dispute with users of a cryptocurrency exchange out of courts and into private arbitration. At issue is whether upon creating their Coinbase accounts, users agreed to resolve disputes through arbitration. A subsequent agreement related to a Dogecoin sweepstakes stipulated that any issues related to the contest must be addressed in state court. Users later accused Coinbase of violating California’s false advertising law by luring them into a sweepstakes offering Dogecoin prizes so they brought a class-action lawsuit in federal court. A federal district judge in California refused Coinbase's request to enforce arbitration, as the company argued its user agreements required. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial judge's decision. In a related dispute last summer, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Coinbase. In that case, the justices supported Coinbase’s request to suspend customer lawsuits while seeking appeals to move disputes from courts to private arbitration. The review of the current case will likely impact the current status of arbitrability decisions by courts verus arbitrators and the utilization of arbitration clauses and enforcement of user agreements, especially in digital currency trading. When parties enter into successive contracts, and the first contains an arbitration agreement with a delegation clause but the second does not, who decides whether the first contract’s arbitration agreement governs any later disputes? This may finally resolve a regional circuit split. See more here-- https://tinyurl.com/ycy8xr67 and https://tinyurl.com/32s87z6t and https://tinyurl.com/2z57nbez

SCOTUS Stays Cases during Arb Appeals

The U.S. Supreme Court held last week that non-final appeals on arbitrability would stay litigation automatically while decided. This case arose from a class action between the cryptocurrency platform Coinbase and its users. The terms and conditions of the site required users to submit disputes to mandatory arbitration. The named plaintiff sued in federal court, arguing that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable. When the district court agreed, Coinbase appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit seeking an interlocutory order that would stay the lawsuit until the appeal on arbitration could be heard. In conflict with decisions from other federal appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit rejected that position. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, finding a right to an interlocutory appeal of a decision not to enforce a mandatory arbitration agreement. The Court noted requiring cases to proceed to trial before hearing such appeals would defeat the purpose of using arbitration in the first place. As a result, an appeal of a district court’s decision to invalidate or enforce and arbitration agreement will be given an automatic stay of the matter pending the appeal. The Court opined it makes sense that absent an automatic stay of district court proceedings, Congress’s decision to afford a right to an interlocutory appeal in Section 16 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) would be largely nullified. Beyond this reasoning, the majority also noted the purposes of arbitration and explained that automatic stays will preserve those objectives of efficiency, reduced litigation cost, and reduced discovery burdens on the parties. See more on Case No. 22-105 here-- https://tinyurl.com/546zn456 and https://tinyurl.com/2r5snu79

SCOTUS Arbitration Decisions

As this tumultous term comes to a close, a pair of recent employment case rulings has given some to insight into the future of the U.S. Supreme Court's direction on arbitration which has been pretty firm as of late. Traditionally, the Court has relied upon precendent and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) in enforcing the right to arbitrate as contractual in nature and upholding those agreements. More recently, the Court is reversing decisions that apply even-handed rules to the FAA. In Morgan v. Sundance, a unanimous Court rejected the two-part test applied by most federal circuits in evaluating whether a party has waived its right to compel enforcement of an arbitration agreement. Under that test, waiver would be found only if a party acted in a manner inconsistent with its arbitration rights and that inconsistency caused prejudice to the other side. The principal justification for requiring prejudice was federal policy favoring arbitration. Finding that the usual test for contractual waiver typically requires only inconsistent conduct, the Court held it improper to add a prejudice requirement onto the waiver analysis just for arbitration agreements. The text of the FAA makes clear that courts are not to create arbitration-specific procedural rules. In Viking River Cruises v. Moriana, eight of nine justices agreed with the result relying in part on a severability provision in the arbitration agreement to narrow an otherwise invalid wholesale waiver of state Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims. This suggests that whether courts will compel arbitration of individual PAGA claims may turn on the specific language of the arbitration agreement at issue. The lone dissent came from Justice Thomas, who long has viewed the Federal Arbitration Act does not apply to cases in state courts. The FAA also can preempt rules “that are generally applicable as a formal matter” but have the effect of making arbitration agreements ineffective because they are inherently inconsistent with arbitration. Such rules would include those that would require a party to arbitrate on a class basis or not at all. See decisions-- http://tinyurl.com/3e6hbek9 and http://tinyurl.com/57r87jzc and more here-- http://tinyurl.com/yeaw7sdd and http://tinyurl.com/yc4ktrmv

Rare Florida Case Addresses Arbitrability

This year, a Florida district court of appeal chose to delve into what they saw as a "rather arcane" issue in arbitration of who decides whether a dispute is subject to a contract's arbitration provision: an arbitrator or a judge? There are many recent decisions from around the country deferring to the arbitrator. However, the majority explains the contract's provision in this case did not provide clear and unmistakable evidence that only the arbitrator could decide the issue of arbitrability. Unbeknownst to the renter of an Airbnb, the host had installed hidden cameras throughout the unit. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant secretly recorded the entire stay in the unit. For this violation of privacy, a lawsuit was filed in state court. Airbnb then filed a motion to compel arbitration. Airbnb argued the claims were subject to arbitration through Airbnb's Terms of Service, under which the renter agreed to be bound to pursuant to a "clickwrap" agreement. The arbitration provision contained fairly standard language such as "You acknowledge and agree that you and Airbnb are each waiving the right to a trial by jury." The court held that the clickwrap agreement's arbitration provision and the AAA rule it referenced that addresses an arbitrator's authority to decide arbitrability did not, in themselves, arise to "clear and unmistakable" evidence that the parties intended to remove the court's presumed authority to decide such questions. The evidence on what these parties may have agreed to about the "who decides" arbitrability question was considered ambiguous. Therefore, the trial court retained its presumed authority to decide the arbitrability dispute. A conflict with decisions from other districts was certified. See full opinion here-- https://tinyurl.com/y4oyxsgv

Class Arbitration Attacked Again

Recent rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court have supported the underlying concept codified in the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), but have demanded clarity in the drafting of agreements seeking implementation of an arbitration process through which to dispose of disputes. Recently, in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, the Court found neither silence nor ambiguity in an arbitration agreement regarding the permissibility of class arbitration enables a court to find that the parties agreed to permit class arbitration. According to the Court, consent is fundamental to arbitration. Arbitration agreements must be express and unambiguous because it would so drastically alter the nature of the proceeding from the simple bilateral process that was envisioned in the FAA. Rules of ADR organizations such as JAMS or AAA incorporated by reference into the agreement that contain ancillary rules under which arbitrators could conduct class proceedings had no effect on the Court’s decision. This implies that mere incorporation of other procedural rules is not a sufficient basis to infer an agreement to permit class arbitration either. The Court emphasized that class arbitration proceedings are fundamentally different in nature from bilateral arbitrations envisioned by the FAA. Class arbitrations sacrifice the informality of the contemplated bilateral process, as well as its speed, simplicity, and relative inexpensiveness, and instead produce a slower, more costly, and more complex process that looks like “the litigation it was meant to displace." See full analysis here-- https://bit.ly/2HlFvdW and opinion here-- https://bit.ly/2GvzOZm

SCOTUS - Second Unanimous Arbitration Opinion

This month, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its second unanimous opinion on arbitration. In New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, which arose out of an employment dispute between a trucking company and driver, the Court found while the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) authorizes a court to compel arbitration if parties agreed to arbitrate, the statute also defines the agreements to which it applies. Before a court enforces an agreement to arbitrate, it must first ensure the agreement is one the FAA authorizes courts to enforce. Specifically at issue was whether an exception to the rule in the FAA that obligates courts to enforce arbitration agreements that involve interstate commerce applied. Section I of the FAA exempts contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce from arbitration. The opinion explains while a private agreement may be crystal clear and require arbitration of every question under the sun, that does not necessarily mean the FAA authorizes courts to stay litigation and send the parties to an arbitral forum. In this instance, companies engaged in interstate or foreign transportation should take notice that a trucker’s status as an independent contractor no longer protects the company’s arbitration agreement with him or her under the FAA. Interestingly, despite a conservative majority, the justices chose to interpret the FAA in a way that likely expands worker’s rights. Justice Gorsuch, who authored the opinion, did not deny the vigor of the court’s embrace of a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements. However, in this case, the text seemed clear enough to persuade all of the justices to reject the claim for arbitration. See commentaries here-- https://bit.ly/2Gdqhb2 and https://bit.ly/2CvAxro and opinion here-- https://bit.ly/2CyEpbd

SCOTUS: Arbitrability is for Arbitrator not Court

This week, in what happened to be Justice Kavanaugh's first opinion on the U.S. Supreme Court, an arbitration ruling in a case centered on whether courts can prevent arbitrators from deciding if an issue can be arbitrated at all. Many parties prefer to arbitrate claims because the process is sometimes cheaper and faster than traditional litigation in court which also carries a greater risk of large damages awards by juries. This case arose in a contract dispute between a dental equipment distributor and a manufacturer. Their contract provided that disputes arising from the agreement would be resolved in arbitration, except in instances where one party sought an injunction. The Supreme Court found unanimously in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., that under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), a lower court must enforce an arbitration agreement that requires the arbitrator to decide whether a dispute should be decided in arbitration, regardless of the court’s view of the merits of the request for arbitration. When a contract allows arbitrators to decide whether a dispute can be resolved through arbitration, “a court may not override the contract." The holding states the “wholly groundless” exception to arbitrability is inconsistent with the FAA and Court precedent. Under the Act, arbitration is a matter of contract, and courts must enforce arbitration contracts according to their terms. The Supreme Court has long held that the FAA allows the parties to a contract to decide whether an arbitration agreement will extend to those gateway questions, explaining that courts must compel arbitration of the gateway questions whenever the agreement includes “clear and unmistakable evidence” that the parties delegated the decision of those questions to the arbitrator. See stories here-- https://bit.ly/2FqySH1 and https://fxn.ws/2M2c41x and opinion here-- https://bit.ly/2CXAgPw

More Arbitration Argument Before SCOTUS

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has oral arguments in two arbitration cases. In the first matter, Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., the justices consider if a judge or an arbitrator should decide if a particular dispute should be resolved in arbitration rather than in court. In the second case, Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela, the issue is whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) precludes state law interpretation of arbitration contracts allowing for class arbitration and who decides whether a particular dispute should be decided in arbitration rather than a court. SCOTUS has already recognized that arbitrators decide issues of arbitrability if the parties clearly and unmistakably agree the arbitrator can assess whether any particular dispute is sufficiently related to the contract to warrant arbitration. Apparently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit will not send a case to the arbitrator decide the question of arbitrability, even if the parties have agreed that the arbitrator should decide such questions, if the court finds the claim of arbitrability wholly groundless. The contract in the first case mentioned above provided for arbitration of any dispute arising under or related to the contract, except for actions seeking injunctive relief. The complaint sought damages for Sherman Act violations, as well as injunctive relief. The defendants sought arbitration, arguing the thrust of the complaint was to seek damages, and that injunctive relief could issue after the arbitrator ruled on the merits. Lower courts refused to send the matter to arbitration, finding the request for arbitration groundless because of the inclusion in the complaint of a count for injunctive relief. Because SCOTUS already decided parties can delegate issues of arbitrability to an arbitrator in precedents that do not include exceptions for cases in which courts regard the request for arbitration as groundless, a reversal is likely given recent trends in favor of arbitration. The second case hinges on whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit correctly held that an employer did consent to class arbitration when it included language in the arbitration contract that committed the parties to use arbitration in lieu of any and all lawsuits or other civil legal proceedings. This case too may find itself going back, but on procedural grounds as the FAA dictates that an appeal may not be taken from an interlocutory order directing arbitration to proceed. See more here-- https://bit.ly/2AzcN6e and https://bit.ly/2JodgdX and https://bit.ly/2w5K2O8

SCOTUS of Just 8 Consider Arbitrability

This week, a U.S. Supreme Court of just eight justices will hear New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira including the matter of whether a dispute over applicability of the Federal Arbitration Act's (FAA) Section 1 exemption is an arbitrability issue that must be resolved in arbitration pursuant to a valid delegation clause. Importantly, this case may resolve whether such applicability of the FAA is a question for the arbitrator or the judge. Several of the Supreme Court’s recent cases suggest that an arbitrator’s authority includes not only resolving of the dispute, but also determining the extent to which any particular dispute falls within our authority as arbitrators. Interestingly, retired Justice Kennedy was one of five justices commonly in the majority when arbitration cases were decided by a 5-4 vote. An even panel of justices must now decide how activity in this case, which involves an exception from the FAA for “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce," will be determined. The underlying facts concern individuals who drive the trucks carrying goods consigned to trucking companies documenting drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. For example, if that exception does not apply, then long-haul truck drivers are back in the conventional domain of the FAA. The actual text of the FAA, however, does not exempt all transportation “employees.” Rather, it exempts “contracts of employment” of transportation employees. Oral argument is scheduled October 3rd. See more here-- https://bit.ly/2OZyZec and https://bit.ly/2HVjWiB and https://bit.ly/2OteZDM

Arbitrator to Decide Trump Campaign Staffer Claim

Earlier this month, a New York Supreme Court judge decided a former campaign staffer‘s lawsuit regarding harassment could not be moved to private arbitration because her NDA didn’t specify that. Rather, it was merely an option and contained nothing about her job responsibilities, terms of her employment, salary, benefits, or her ability to pursue her own claim. Per the ruling, the state court observed the arbitration clause confined arbitration to "any dispute arising under or relating to this agreement." The state judge also decided it did not require arbitration for any "dispute between the parties" or even "any dispute arising out of plaintiff’s employment." In fact, the court did recognize an arbitrator's province in determining arbitrability, but said is was not even close call and was so clear on this specific, narrow clause as to be a question for the courts alone. Now, however, an arbitrator should have the first stab at deciding over the validity of an arbitration agreement according to a U.S. District in the Southern District of New York who ruled yesterday in a decision that appears to run counter to the state case. The new federal decision is reportedly in accordance with the prior state ruling, as it suggests that each turned on different wording of the separate complaints filed in the respective courts. The latest federal decision is certain to be presented as strong support for the appeal Trump’s legal team plans to file at the state court level. The employee sought to have the arbitration agreement declared unenforceable, saying it had been “weaponized” against her by the campaign. In his opinion and order, the federal judge said the terms of the NDA agreement she signed demands that her very argument about the agreement’s unenforceability must be determined by an arbitrator. The language of the arbitration states that any dispute "arising under or relating to" the agreement was subjected to the rules for commercial arbitration of the American Arbitration Association. Those rules state that the arbitrator has the power to rule on issues of his or her own jurisdiction, including the validity of the agreement itself. Interestingly, in noting the prior ruling at the state level, and specifically that the federal court was in no way bound by it, the judge quoted the state court critique of the language of the agreement failing to require any claims needing to be sent to arbitration, rather than any dispute under or related to the agreement. "Instead, the clause is much narrower: it allows defendant to choose whether to arbitrate any dispute that arises out of the agreement." In this, the federal judge found the claimant raised a "dispute that arises out of the agreement" --whether the agreement is enforceable, and further finding it follows that,"even on the state-court’s view of the arbitration clause, this dispute falls with the clause’s scope." As such, the federal case was dismissed, with neither party requesting to stay the case pending arbitration. See full story here-- https://bit.ly/2PTAHPh

Insight into Trump Stormy Settlement Agreement

This week, porn star Stormy Daniels was on CBS's 60 minutes and since her interview, the White House reportedly isn't saying much, including declining for weeks to say whether President Trump was party to a $130,000 hush-money payment his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, made to Daniels on the eve of the 2016 election. Cohen obtained a temporary restraining order against Daniels from a private arbitrator, a retired judge, barring her from disclosing "confidential information" related to the nondisclosure agreement. A lawsuit was filed after a multiple reports alleging that Daniels and Trump had an affair beginning in July 2006 at a celebrity golf tournament and was paid money for her to keep quiet in October 2016. While Daniels initially denied the affair, her decision to file the lawsuit confirmed her part in the affair. She and her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, even included the text of the “hush agreement” as an exhibit attached to her complaint which, interestingly, uses pseudonyms for the parties and says they wish to avoid the lime, expense, and inconvenience of potential litigation, and to resolve any and all disputes and potential legal claims between them. The case was filed in L.A. Superior Court and then removed to federal court. The first controversy likely to be taken up by the judge is whether the dispute must be handled in arbitration, where Daniels is being pursued for allegedly breaching contract by making public statements about Trump. Also at issue, is who signed the agreement on behalf of whom. Although Trump hasn't formally moved yet to compel arbitration, the mere threat has prompted Avenatti to argue depositions of Trump and Cohen each are necessary in order to collect facts that bear directly on the formation of the hush agreement. See copy of initial pleadings, including agreement as exhibit linked at bottom of story here-- https://bit.ly/2GASrNK and more on federal court proceedings linked to this report-- https://bit.ly/2IdwotF