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

State Judge: Arbitration not required by Trump NDA

Last week, former White House official Omarosa Manigault Newman made the rounds on national news shows about her new book and her firing which raised the question of whether she violated a signed a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) regarding her time in the Trump Administration. Meanwhile, an order in a New York lawsuit brought by another staffer during the campaign points to how Trump's future motion to compel arbitration claims may be decided. A state judge ruled Friday that another 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 court observed the arbitration clause confined arbitration to "any dispute arising under or relating to this agreement." The judge also decided it did not require arbitration for "any dispute between the parties" or even "any dispute arising out of plaintiff’s employment." Interestingly, 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. Reportedly, Manigault Newman claims President Donald Trump is trying to silence her after his campaign filed an arbitration, claiming she violated her own non-disclosure agreement. See full news stories here-- https://bit.ly/2wgkYAT and https://usat.ly/2Bf3Cdu and court order here-- https://bit.ly/2Mna1IC

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