Yesterday’s post concludes our 2009 Year-End Highlights series. If you missed some of the posts, you can find them here or by following the ‘2009 Year-End Highlights’ link on the right, under ‘Categories.’
Continue reading...In 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided the following arbitration-related cases: In Cont’l Airlines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, No. 07-20835 (5th Cir. Jan. 13, 2009) the court concluded that the district court had no statutory authority to reverse a reinstatement order issued by the System Board of Adjustment and that its order cannot be sustained on grounds of public policy. In Agere Systems Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 07-40984 (5th Cir. Feb. 18, 2009) the court held that the question of arbitrability should be decided by an arbitrator. In Citigroup Global Markets Inc. v. Bacon, No. 07-20670 (5th Cir. Mar. 5, 2009) the court held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) provides the exclusive grounds to vacate arbitral awards and rejected the doctrine of “manifest disregard” of the law. (read more here and here) In Geraldine Nicholas v. KBR, Inc., No. 08-20140, (5th Cir. Mar. 15, 2009) the court affirmed the district court’s ruling denying an employee’s motion to compel arbitration of a contract dispute with her former employer because she waived her right to arbitrate when she substantially invoked the judicial process to the prejudice of her employer. (read more here) In Woodmen of the World Life Insurance Society/ Omaha Woodmen Life Insurance Society v. JRY, No. 08-30405 (5th Cir. Mar. 23, 2009) the court held that tort claims fell within an arbitration agreement. (read more here) In Nat’l Resort Mgmt v. Cortez , No. 08-10805 (5th Cir. Mar. 31, 2009), the court cited Hall Street v. Mattel and Citigroup v. Bacon, stating that “the number of grounds for challenging an arbitration award has been substantially reduced.” In Graves v. BP American Inc., No. 08-40575 (5th Cir. May 6, 2009), the court held that non-signatories plaintiffs were bound by the arbitration agreement between decedent and his employer. (read more here) In Symetra Life Ins. Co. v. Rapid Settlements Ltd., No. 08-20248 (5th Cir. May 11, 2009), the court held that arbitration cannot be used to circumvent procedural requirements of the Texas Structured Settlement Protection Act and affirmed the district court’s refusal to confirm an arbitration award. (read more here) In Green v. Service Corporation International, No. 08-20607 (5th Cir. June 2, 2009) the court held that a company did not waive its right to arbitration by participating in administrative proceedings initiated by the employee and affirmed the district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award. (read more here) In Saipem America v. Wellington Underwriting Agencies Limited, No. 08-20247 (5th Cir. June 9, 2009) the court held that an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitral tribunal did not exceed its powers and affirmed the confirmation of the arbitral award. (read more here) In Petroleum Pipe Americas Co., v. Jindal Saw Ltd., No. 08-20461 (5th Cir. July 9, 2009) the court held that a party waived its right to arbitrate by waiting one year after the suit was filed before seeking to compel arbitration. (read more here) In El Paso Corporation v. La Comision Ejecutiva, No. 08-20771 (5th Cir. Aug. 6, 2009) the court held that section 1782 (Assistance to Foreign and International Tribunals and to Litigants Before such Tribunals) does not apply for a discovery motion for use in a private international arbitration. (read more here) In ENSCO International Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s et. al., No. 08-10451 (5th Cir. Aug. 12, 2009) the court held that a contract containing a choice of law and forum clause effectively waives the right to remove to federal court under the New York Convention. (read more here) In Jones v. Halliburton Co., No. 08-20380 (5th Cir. Sept. 15, 2009) the court held that claims for (1) assault and battery; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (3) negligent hiring, retention and supervision of employees involved in a sexual assault; and (4) false imprisonment are not related to the plaintiff’s employment contract and refused to compel arbitration. (read more here and here; Guest-Post by F. Peter Phillips is here) In Theriault v. FIA Card Services, N.A., No. 09-30233 (5th Cir. Oct. 8, 2009) the court confirmed a credit card dispute arbitration award issued by the National Arbitration Forum. (read more here) In Uniited Forming, Inc. v. Faulknerusa, LP, No. 09-50073 (5th Cir. Oct. 27, 2009) the court reaffirmed that the FAA provides the exclusive grounds to vacate arbitral awards after Hall Street v. Mattel. (read more here) In Dealer Computers Svc v. Old Colony Motors, No. 09-20049 (5th Cir. Nov. 19, 2009) the court held that the payment of a deposit for an arbitration was a procedural matter for the arbitrators to decide. (read the case summary here and the commentary by Professor Alan Scott Rau here) In The Householder Group v. Caughran , No. 09-40111 (5th Cir. Nov. 20, 2009) the court affirmed the lower court’s decision to confirm the arbitral award, despite challenge based on evident partiality and actual bias. (read more here) Technorati Tags: arbitration, ADR, law
Continue reading...The U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari to Jackson v. Rent-A-CenterWest, Inc. , No. 07-16164 (9th Cir. Sept. 9, 2009). The question presented is whether a district court is in all cases required to determine claims that an arbitration agreement subject to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) is unconscionable, even when the parties to the contract have clearly and unmistakably assigned this “gateway” issue to the arbitrator for decision. Find Professor Sarah Cole’s commentary on the Ninth Circuit opinion here. Stay tuned to Disputing for more legal developments! Technorati Tags: law, ADR, arbitration
Continue reading...by Peter S. Vogel Recent surveys indicate that there are over 210 billion emails sent each day, which does not include the more than 1 trillion text messages sent in 2008. eDiscovery has impacted every lawsuit in every courthouse, and with this unbelievable number of emails and text messages litigation will never be the same. After the Guest Post last November about Allison Skinner’s Brilliant idea about eMediation, Allison and I have received great feedback about the eMediation idea. Judges and lawyers throughout the country are excited about this new use of the Mediation process to solve the biggest problem in litigation today, eDiscovery. Get CLE Credit and Learn about eMediation and Special Masters So join Allison O’Neal Skinner and me on our webcast when we discuss “how-to” conduct eMediations and when a Special Master should be considered for eDiscovery. The TexasBarCLE will broadcast this webcast live on February 16, 2010 from 2-3:30pm (1.5 hours CLE credit). On the webcast Allison and I plan to discuss: The benefits of eMediation to effectively manage eDiscovery in a unique and productive way. How and when to use an eMediation. The various functions the Special Master can serve for the parties and the Court. The comparative effectiveness of an eMediator versus a Special Master at different pre-trial stages. Also I’m happy to report that Allison is teaching a course this spring on eDiscovery at her alma mater, the University of Alabama Law School. Technorati Tags: ADR, law, mediation, e-discovery Peter S. Vogel is a trial partner at Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP where he is Chair of the Electronic Discovery Group and Co-Chair of the Technology Industry Team. Before practicing law he worked as a computer programmer, received a Masters in Computer Science, and taught graduate courses in information systems. For 12 years he served as the founding Chair of the Texas Supreme Court on Judicial Information Technology which is responsible for helping automate the Texas court system and putting Internet on the desktops of all 3,200 judges. Peter has taught courses on the Law of eCommerce at the SMU Dedman School of Law since 2000. Many of Peter’s topics are discussed on his blog www.vogelitlawblog.com.
Continue reading...Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.
To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.
Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.
To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.