In Krinsk v. Suntrust Banks, Inc., No. 10-11912 (11th Cir. Sept. 7, 2011) the defendant had participated in the case for nine months without enforcing its right to arbitrate the class action claims. In response to the court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff amended the complaint and expanded the definition of the putative class from one that covered hundreds of members to one that potentially covered tens of thousands of members. It was at that point that the defendant moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement governed by the Federal Arbitration Act. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the defendant had waived its contractual right to arbitrate by participating in the litigation. The defendant now appeals. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that when an amended complaint “unexpectedly changes the scope or theory of the plaintiff’s claims,” the defendant may revive its right to compel arbitration. The court stated that “[I]n limited circumstances, fairness dictates that a waiver of arbitration be nullified by the filing of an amended complaint.” Technorati Tags: law, ADR, arbitration

The International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) announced recently the creation of the ICC International Centre for ADR. Based in Paris, members of the Centre actively participate in a variety of consultancy bodies, including a World Bank advisory group, the International Bar Association task force for investor-state mediation rules, and the Board and Independent Standards Commission of the International Mediation Institute. Read the press release here. Technorati Tags: law, ADR, arbitration

We invite you to check out SCOTUSblog Symposium on Arbitration. The blog has featured the following guest-posts: AT&T Mobility and the end of consumer class action through Commerce Clause jurisprudence: Not so fast, Terry Moritz A second, more circumstantial separability doctrine, Thomas Carbonneau Is the Supreme Court demanding enough as it provides incentives for the private funding of a federal small claims court?, Nancy Welsh The third arbitration trilogy: Revelation, reaction and reflection on the direction of American arbitration, Thomas Stipanowich Rent-A-Center v. Jackson: Delegating to arbitrator power to determine arbitrability, Steven Bennett The uncertain future of the “manifest disregard” doctrine, John Elwood Class actions in the wake of Concepcion, Michael Rubin Eliminating class actions – a tsunami in the wake of AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion threatens access to justice, Jean Sternlight Do-it-yourself tort reform: How the Supreme Court quietly killed the class action, David Schwartz Some costs of flaunting but flunking Contract, Lawrence Cunningham AT&T Mobility vs. Concepcion: From unconscionability to vindication of rights, Myriam Gilles Arbitrating employment discrimination claims in the collective bargaining context: the future is far from certain, Dan Ratner AT&T Mobility, FAA preemption and class arbitration, Jill Gross Status and contract in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, Hiro Aragaki Separate and unequal, Cliff Palefsky Is the end of class actions upon us?, Brian Fitzpatrick Does the Federal Arbitration Act apply to wills and trusts?, David Horton Concepcion and the Arbitration Fairness Act, Christopher Drahozal Technorati Tags: law, ADR, arbitration

In In the Estate of James H. Rice, No. 10-10-00021-CV (Tex.App.- Waco, Aug. 10, 2011) the court found the appeal was appropriate for mediation and on April 20, 2011, ordered the parties to mediate this case. The mediation took place at the McLennan County Dispute Resolution Center (“DRC”) on June 15, 2011. The court, however, received a letter from DRC dated June 22, 2011 which stated the following: the mediation session ended abruptly when Appellant, James H. Rice, Jr. unexpectedly left the premises and did not return, prior to the mediation being terminated, adjourned, or recessed by the DRC’s volunteer mediator. As a result, the parties were unable to reach any agreement and the mediator, in the absence of the Appellant, pronounced the mediation terminated with the parties at impasse. The court was not persuaded by appellant’s explanation that he “felt it best to put this matter in the hands of the Court” and dismissed the appeal.