Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Benihana America obtained a preliminary injunction in aid of arbitration of a dispute arising under its license agreement with Benihana of Tokyo, prohibiting Tokyo from: selling unauthorized food items at the restaurant it operates under the license agreement; using certain trademarks in connection with that restaurant in a manner not approved by the license agreement; and arguing to the arbitral panel, if it rules that Tokyo breached the license agreement, that Tokyo should be given additional time to cure any defaults. The Second Circuit affirmed with respect to the menu offering and trademark use injunctions. The court reasonably concluded that each of the relevant factors favored Benihana America. The court reversed the prohibition on arguing to the arbitral panel for an extended cure period. When a dispute is properly before an arbitrator, a court should not interfere with the arbitral process on the ground that, in its view of the merits, a particular remedy would not be warranted. Benihana America may challenge an arbitrator’s decision in court only after it has been issued. It may not subvert its agreement to arbitrate by obtaining an advance judicial determination that there are no grounds for the arbitrator to grant a particular remedy. View "Benihana, Inc. v. Benihana of Tokyo, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs signed a form contract with Defendant for the construction of a house. The contract contained an arbitration clause within which was a provision that Defendant contended was a “delegation provision” stating that the parties agreed to delegate, from the courts to an arbitrator, any question about the enforceability of the arbitration clause. Plaintiffs later filed a complaint against Defendant for alleged defects in the house. The circuit court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration clause was procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court should have enforced the delegation provision and referred the parties’ claims about arbitrability to arbitration. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the delegation provision did not reflect a clear and unmistakable intent by the parties to assign to the arbitrator all questions about the enforceability of the arbitration clause; and (2) the circuit court was correct in deciding that the arbitration provision was unenforceable under West Virginia contract law. View "Schumacher Homes of Circleville v. Spencer" on Justia Law

This dispute arose from a contract signed by the parties in 2006, the Wireless Patent License Agreement, which provided for arbitration as the mechanism to resolve any claims arising under that Agreement. LG Electronics, Inc. sought a declaration in the Court of Chancery that InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, and IPR Licensing Inc. that InterDigital had breached a nondisclosure agreement between the parties by disclosing confidential information during a pending arbitration proceeding. The Court of Chancery granted InterDigital's motion to dismiss, holding that all of LG's claims were properly before the arbitral tribunal, and deferred to the "first-filed proceeding" based on the factors established by the Delaware Supreme Court in "McWane Cast Iron Pipe Corp. v. McDowell-Wellman Engineering Co." After review, the Supreme Court agreed that the McWane doctrine applied in this case, and that it supported dismissing LG's claims. View "LG Electronics, Inc. v. InterDigital Communications, Inc." on Justia Law

A franchisee janitorial worker, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, filed a complaint against System4 LLC, a master franchisor, and NECCS, Inc., a regional subfranchisor, alleging, among other claims, breach of contract, misclassification as independent contractors in their franchise agreements, and rescission of the franchise agreements. The franchise agreements, signed only by Plaintiffs and NEECS, required the franchisees to arbitrate virtually all disputes. Defendants, citing the arbitration clause in the franchise agreement, moved to stay the court proceedings pending arbitration. The judge concluded that because System4 was not a nonsignatory to the agreements, Plaintiffs could proceed to litigate their claims against System4 in court. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding that, by reason of equitable estoppel, System4 could compel Plaintiffs to arbitrate their substantive claims in accordance with the arbitration provision in Plaintiffs’ franchise agreements. Remanded. View "Machado v. System4 LLC" on Justia Law

Shasta Linen Supply, a California corporation, applied for workers’ compensation insurance coverage from Applied Underwriters, a Nebraska corporation. Shasta accepted Applied’s proposed policy through an agreement entitled a Request to Bind Coverages & Services. On the same day, Shasta entered into a Reinsurance Participation Agreement (RPA) with Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company (AUCRA), Applied’s subsidiary and a British Virgin Islands corporation. The request to bind and the RPA contained conflicting provisions regarding the parties’ arbitration process for resolving disputes. After a dispute arose regarding the amount of money that Shasta owed to Applied, the American Arbitration Association (AAA) acknowledged receipt of AUCRA’s demand for arbitration. Shasta filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the request to bind required arbitration by "JAMS" in Omaha, Nebraska and injunctive relief from the AAA arbitration. The court determined that it had jurisdiction to decide which contract provision controlled and issued a temporary injunction and stay of the AAA arbitration until it decided the parties’ rights. Applied and AUCRA appealed, arguing that the court erred in exercising jurisdiction over the parties’ contract dispute and granting a temporary injunction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the court’s temporary injunction and stay was an interlocutory order that was not appealable. View "Shasta Linen Supply, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc." on Justia Law

This arbitration case stemmed from disputes over Appellee Organizational Strategies, Inc.'s (OSI) captive insurance program, created with Appellants Capstone Insurance Management, Ltd., Capstone Associated Services, and Capstone Associated Services (Wyoming), LP's (collectively, "Capstone") assistance. Appellant PoolRe, managed by Capstone, provided insurance services to OSI's newly created captive insurance companies. Capstone and OSI entered into contracts requiring AAA arbitration, whereas PoolRe and the captive insurance companies entered into contracts requiring ICC arbitration. An arbitrator joined all of the parties for arbitration under AAA rules. Because the arbitrator acted contrary to the express provisions of the PoolRe arbitration agreements, the district court held that arbitrator exceeded his authority and, pursuant to 9 U.S.C. 10, vacated the award. Finding no reversible error, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. View "PoolRe Insurance Corp. v. Organizational Strategies, Inc." on Justia Law

Law firms Campbell Harrison & Dagley, L.L.P. (CHD), and Calloway, Norris, Burdette & Weber, P.L.L.C. (CNBW) (collectively, the firms), challenged the district court’s partial vacatur of most of an arbitration award, rendered pursuant to a fee agreement (combining a high hourly-rate fee and a low-percentage contingency fee), which governed the firms’ representation of Albert G. Hill, III, and his wife, Erin Hill. After arbitrating a dispute over the requested payment to the firms under the fee agreement, the arbitrators awarded them approximately $28 million. Although the district court, inter alia, enforced the hourly-rate fee award, it vacated the contingency-fee award as unconscionable. In rejecting the arbitrators’ determinations regarding the uncertainty of recovery, the reasonableness of the total fee, and unconscionability, the Fifth Circuit concluded the district court “substitute[d] [its] judgment for that of the arbitrators merely because [it] would have reached a different decision”. As a result, it erred in vacating the contingency-fee-portion of the award and related awards (for the arbitration, the firms’ attorney’s fees, other fees, expenses, and arbitrators’ compensation; and pre-judgment interest on the contingency-fee portion). The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court with respect to the unconscionability issue, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The district court was affirmed in all other respects. View "Campbell Harrison & Dagley, et al v. Hill" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a group of Daymar College students, filed a lawsuit against Daymar, challenging the college’s admissions process as both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Specifically, Plaintiffs challenged the incorporation of an arbitration provision on the reverse side of the Student Enrollment Agreement, claiming they were unaware of the arbitration provision’s existence, let alone its meaning. The trial court refused to compel arbitration, concluding that the arbitration agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Daymar’s attempted incorporation was unsuccessful, and therefore, Plaintiffs were not bound by the arbitration provision on the reverse side of the Agreement. View "Dixon v. Daymar Colleges Group, LLC" on Justia Law

Noatex Corp. and Kohn Law Group, Inc. appealed two district court decisions in an interpleader action brought by Auto Parts Manufacturing Mississippi, Inc. (“APMM”) that named Noatex, King Construction of Houston, L.L.C., and Kohn as claimants. Appellants claimed that the district court erred in discharging APMM from the action, enjoining all parties from filing any proceedings relating to the interpleader fund without a court order, and in denying their motion to compel arbitration. After careful consideration of the trial court record, the Fifth circuit found no reversible error and affirmed the discharge of APMM and its accompanying injunction, the denial of appellants' motion to compel arbitration and to stay proceedings pending arbitration. King Construction was dismissed from these appeals, and appellants' alternative motion to vacate the trial court's rulings was denied. View "Auto Parts Mfg MS, Inc. v. King Const of Houston,LLC" on Justia Law

Under a consent decree in a lawsuit relating to employee retirement benefits, Navistar contributes to a Supplemental Benefit Trust managed by SBC. The size of its contributions is determined by a formula based on Navistar’s economic performance. Navistar must regularly provide data to the SBC to permit it to evaluate whether Navistar is applying the formula correctly. The agreement provides for arbitration before an accounting firm if SBC disputes the “information or calculations” Navistar provides. SBC claimed that Navistar was improperly classifying aspects of its business activities and structuring its business to evade its profit-sharing obligations under the agreement. Navistar claimed that under the accountant arbitration mechanism, which applies to disputes over the “information or calculations” provided by Navistar, SBC’s claims were subject to arbitration. The district court held that the claims were subject to arbitration, but that Navistar’s conduct before and during litigation waived its right to arbitrate the claims. The Sixth Circuit held that the claims were subject to arbitration and that Navistar had not waived its right. While Navistar may bear some responsibility for the long duration of its dispute with the SBC, its behavior with regard to arbitration does not satisfy the particular elements of waiver. View "Supplemental Benefit Comm. v. Navistar, Inc." on Justia Law