News & Cases

Dispute Resolution & Arbitration

[11/20] PPG Indus., Incorp. v. Int'l Chem. Workers Union Council of the United Food and Commercial Workers
District court's order vacating an arbitrator's award in favor of a union on the ground that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by adding a term to the underlying contract is reversed and remanded as, even if the arbitrator erred, he acted within the scope of his authority under the contract.

[11/19] Dealer Computer Servs. Inc. v. Old Colony Motors Inc.
In an action under 9 U.S.C. section 4 to compel defendant to pay a deposit in the underlying arbitration between the parties, an order requiring defendant to pay is reversed where the issue of whether defendant should be required to pay was a procedural issue left to the discretion of the arbitrators.

[11/12] Cassel v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiff's legal malpractice suit, his request for writ of relief from two orders excluding evidence in favor of his former attorneys is granted and the orders vacated as the communications are a client and his attorney, outside the presence of, and not otherwise communicated to, any opposing party or the mediator, and reveal nothing said or done in the mediation discussion.

[11/12] South Bay Boston Mgmt., Inc. v. Unite Here, Local 26
District court's grant of defendant-union's motion to compel arbitration and denial of plaintiff's petition for declaratory judgment is affirmed where: 1) the Union neutrality agreement at issue was not void ab initio; and 2) the arbitration clause of the agreement remained in effect.

[11/10] Safety Nat'l. Cas. Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's
In an appeal from the denial of a motion to compel arbitration of a contractual dispute among insurers, the order is reversed where the McCarran–Ferguson Act does not authorize state law to reverse-preempt the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards or its implementing legislation.

[11/10] Conrad v. Phone Directories Co.
In an interlocutory appeal of the district court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss premised on the existence of an arbitration agreement, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where, to properly invoke appellate jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), the movant must either explicitly move to stay litigation and/or compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, or it must be unmistakably clear from the four corners of the motion that the movant seeks relief provided for in the FAA.

[11/04] DMA Int'l., Inc. v. Qwest Comms. Int'l., Inc.
In an appeal from the district court's denial of petitioner's motion to vacate an arbitral award, the order is affirmed where the arbitrator's factual findings regarding the meaning of the contract at issue could not be overturned simply because the evidence was conflicting. In addition, attorney's fees are awarded to respondent because petitioner's appeal vexatiously multiplied the proceedings.

[11/04] Memphis Biofuels, LLC. v. Chicksaw Nation Indus., Inc.
In plaintiff's case against the defendants for repudiating an agreement whereby defendant was to deliver diesel fuel and soybean oil to plaintiff's refinery facility, dismissal of the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed as the defendant, a federally chartered tribal corporation, enjoys tribal-sovereign immunity.

[10/30] Toal v. Tardif
In plaintiffs' petition for confirmation of an arbitration award against defendants, trial court's grant of plaintiff's petition is reversed as plaintiffs failed to prove a basic prerequisite of private arbitration, the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, and the signature of defendants' attorney on the arbitration stipulation, standing alone, did not constitute substantial evidence that defendants agreed to arbitrate the dispute.

[10/29] Johnson v. Greenelsh
In proceedings involving an arbitration petition by one co-trustee of a family trust and plaintiff-co-trustee's petition to enforce a no contest clause, appellate court's judgment against defendant-co-trustee is reversed as a challenge to a surviving spouse's mental capacity to transfer trust assets and appoint a successor trustee did not violate the no contest clause in a family trust. A proceeding contesting a settlor's mental competence to exercise rights under a trust does not amount to an attack on the trust itself, unless it seeks to thwart the estate plan established by the trust.

[10/28] Laster v. AT&T Mobility LLC
In a class action claiming that a telephone company's offer of a "free" phone to anyone who signed up for its service was fraudulent to the extent the phone company charged the new subscriber sales tax on the retail value of each "free" phone, denial of defendant's motion to compel arbitration is affirmed where an arbitration clause's "premium" payment in the event of an arbitral award in favor of a customer did not prevent the clause from being unenforceable under California law.

[10/20] Joan Hansen & Co. v. Everlast World's Boxing Headquarters Corp.
In an action seeking an order of contempt for violation of a confirmed arbitral award, the appellate division's denial of defendant's motion to stay plaintiff's motion to reopen the arbitration is reversed where, after issuance of an arbitration award, a party may not seek to reopen the arbitration proceeding to request that the arbitrators consider an issue that was not previously presented to the panel.

[10/20] Burlage v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiffs' dispute over the sale of a house purchased from defendant, trial court's decision to vacate the arbitrator's award in favor of the plaintiffs is affirmed and plaintiffs' petition for writ of mandate denied as the arbitrator excluded material evidence that substantially prejudiced defendant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2

[10/15] Century Indem. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London
District court's orders granting defendant-Lloyd's motion to compel arbitration of a disputed claim based on a set of reinsurance-of-reinsurance agreements and denying plaintiff-Century's motion to vacate an arbitration panel's subsequent award in favor of Lloyd's is affirmed where: 1) district court properly compelled arbitration of the dispute arising from the retrocessional agreements over Lloyd's failure to pay declaratory judgment expenses that Century had paid to its reinsured under reinsurance treaties; and 2) the district court properly denied Century's motion to vacate the arbitration award under 9. U.S.C. section 10(a)(3) as the arbitrators' decision to exclude evidence plaintiff proffered based on the evidence's irrelevance was well within their authority in conducting the arbitration.

[10/15] Seidemann v. Bowen
In a First Amendment action alleging that a professor's union impermissibly charged plaintiff a pro rata share of expenses unrelated to the union's collective bargaining duties, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) a public-sector union's political activities aimed at securing a new contract may be chargeable to nonmembers if those activities are pertinent to the union's role as a collective bargaining representative; 2) nonmembers may be required to subsidize lobbying efforts undertaken by a "parent" union of the local public-sector union if the lobbying is related to collective bargaining and may ultimately inure to the benefit of local union members; 3) the district court erred in upholding the union's charges to nonmembers for (a) political activity undertaken to secure a new contract, (b) lobbying by the local union's state affiliate, (c) costs incurred to send union delegates to the state affiliate's annual convention, and (d) the salaries of the union's employees; 4) the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's challenge to the union's charges for media communications by its national affiliate; and 5) it erred in holding, sua sponte, that plaintiff will be required to arbitrate future claims against the union before filing suit.

[10/08] Telenor Mobile Comms. AS v. Storm LLC
In an appeal from the district court's order confirming a final arbitral award in favor of petitioner and denying respondent's cross-motion to vacate, the order is affirmed where: 1) the arbitration panel did not manifestly disregard the law either by failing to give preclusive effect to Ukrainian court judgments that the parties' dispute was not arbitrable because respondent's agent lacked authority to execute the agreement giving rise to the dispute, or by failing to require a trial to determine the agreement's arbitrability; and 2) the agreement was arbitrable as a matter of law because the respondent's agent had the apparent authority to execute it.

[10/06] Cicle v. Chase Bank USA
In an action alleging illegal credit card penalties, the district court's order denying defendant's motion to stay and to compel arbitration is reversed where: 1) plaintiff had ample opportunity and time to opt out of the amendment to the parties' arbitration agreement before it took effect, but instead continued to use the card; 2) the agreement specifically provided an exception to binding arbitration in that plaintiff could file her claim individually in small claims court; and 3) the record did not support the district court's conclusion that the costs and fees associated with arbitration of plaintiff's individual claim made the agreement unconscionable as to her.

[10/02] Balen v. Holland Am. Line Inc.
In an action for unpaid wages under the Seamen's Wage Act, the district court's order granting defendant's motion to compel arbitration is affirmed where claims under the Act are subject to arbitration pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and plaintiff's claim was subject to a valid arbitration agreement.

[10/02] Local 348-S v. Meridian Mgmt. Corp.
In an appeal from the district court's order requiring defendant to arbitrate the issue of whether it was bound by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, the order is affirmed where defendant's predecessor corporation was a party to the agreement and thus it was binding on defendant.

[09/28] Frontera Resources Azerbaijan Corp. v. State Oil Co. of Azerbaijan
In a petition to confirm a Swedish arbitral award against the government of Azerbaijan, dismissal of the petition for lack of jurisdiction is reversed where the district court erred by holding that foreign states and their agents are entitled to rights under the Due Process Clause.

Back to Main Menu

Welcome |  Firm Overview |  Attorney Profiles |  Practice Areas |  Personal Injury FAQ
Articles |  News & Cases |  Web Resources |  Contact Information |  Directions

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.

Copyright © by Weik, Nitsche, Dougherty & Componovo. All rights reserved. You may reproduce materials available at this site for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution. All copies must include this copyright statement.

This FirmSite® is designed and hosted by FindLaw®, a service of Thomson-West.