Karl Bayer's Disputing Blog » U.S. Supreme Court

GUEST-POST PART I | Class and Consolidated Arbitration Under the Federal Arbitration Act: What Issues Will the United States Supreme Court Confront in Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. V. AnimalFeeds Int’l Co.?

By Victoria VanBuren - August 6, 2009

Part I: Introduction By Philip J. Loree Jr. Introduction The Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum is delighted to guest post once again on Karl Bayer’s and Victoria VanBuren’s wonderful ADR blog, Disputing. Because Victoria and I have both written fairly extensively about Hall Street Assoc. v. Mattel, Inc, 128 S. Ct. 1396 (2008), and about two of the most frequently cited cases construing Hall Street’s dictum on manifest disregard of the l

Arbitration of Discrimination Claims After 14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett

By Victoria VanBuren - July 8, 2009

On April 1, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the landmark case 14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett (find our case summary here and additional comments here). Then, in May, a U.S. District Court in Colorado decided the first case post-Pyett (blogged here). Recently, we came across yet another Pyett progeny. This time, it was the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York‘s turn in Shipkevich v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp. & Aramark, 2

U.S. Supreme Court Vacates Sixth Circuit Decision that Nonsignatories May not Enforce Arbitration Agreement

By Victoria VanBuren - July 7, 2009

Looks like the U.S. Supreme Court can’t have enough of arbitration this term. As posted at the Adjunct Law Prof, the Court vacated and remanded Kimberlin v Renasant Bank (Dkt No 08-816). The issue decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was whether non-parties to an arbitration agreement can invoke Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act and compel arbitration. The U.S. Supreme Court decided this issue recently in Arthur

U.S. Supreme Court Grants Cert to Stolt-Nielsen: Class Action Arbitration Case

By Victoria VanBuren - June 16, 2009

As posted in our Commercial and Industry Arbitration and Mediation Group on LinkedIn, yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to Stolt-Nielsen SA v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 548 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2008). The issue to be decided is whether imposing class arbitration on parties whose arbitration clauses are silent on that issue is consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act. You can find background about this important case followin

Arbitration of Discrimination Claims: First Post-Pyett Case

By Victoria VanBuren - May 21, 2009

As reported this week by the Workplace Prof Blog, a U.S. District Court in Colorado has issued a decision involving arbitration of statutory claims within the context of a collective bargaining agreement. The case is Mathews v. Denver Newspaper Agency, LLP, 2009 WL 1231776 (D. Colo. 2009). Professor Richard Bales’ analysis of the decision is here: First Post-Pyett Case. Previous Coverage: U.S. Supreme Court Enforces Agreement to Arbitrate D

U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Arbitration Non-signatories’ Rights

By Victoria VanBuren - May 12, 2009

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, No. 08–146, 2009 WL 1174853 (May 4, 2009). Justice Scalia delivered the majority opinion, joined by Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito. Justice Souter filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Stevens joined. The Court decided the following issues: Whether appellate courts have jurisdiction under Section 16(a) of the FAA to r

U.S. Supreme Court Decided Arthur Andersen Case Today

By Victoria VanBuren - May 4, 2009

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, No. 08-146. One of the issues resolved by the Court is whether a contract to arbitrate a dispute is enforceable by a nonsignatory party to the agreement. The text of the opinion is here. We will blog on this case after we read it.

14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett: Conflicts of Interest

By Victoria VanBuren - April 6, 2009

Last Friday, we wrote about the latest U.S. Supreme Court case related to arbitration. As we re-read the lengthy opinion, one of the issues that caught our attention was the composition of the parties (fully described here) and the potential for conflicts of interest. As Justice Stevens‘ dissenting opinion points out, the majority noted “the problem of entrusting a union with certain arbitration decisions given the potential conflict

U.S. Supreme Court Enforces Agreement to Arbitrate Discrimination Claims in 14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett

By Victoria VanBuren - April 3, 2009

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court decided (5-4) 14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett, No. 07-581, (U.S. Apr. 1, 2009). Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito. Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Souter filed a dissenting opinion as well, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer. Respondents are employed as night lobby watchmen and are members of the Service Employ

U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Vaden v. Discover Bank

By Victoria VanBuren - March 19, 2009

Last week we blogged about the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Vaden V. Discover Bank, No. 07-773, (U.S. Mar. 9, 2009). Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas. Chief Justice Roberts concurred in part and dissented in part and was joined by Stevens, Breyer, and Alito. Here is a summary of the case. Discover Bank sued cardholder Vaden in Maryland state court to recover past due charges ($10,6