Health Care Neutral ADR Blog by Richard Webb
In Reed v. Florida Metropolitan University, Inc., No. 11-50509 (5th Cir. May 18, 2012), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that an arbitrator exceeded his powers in finding the parties' agreement authorized class arbitration (hat tip to Victoria VanBuren at Disputing). The case is remarkably similar to Sutter v. Oxford Health Plans, in which the Third Circuit reached the opposite conclusion, as discussed here previously.
In Reed, the court found no express agreement to engage in class action arbitration, and refused to accept the arbitrator's interpretation of the parties' contract, which inferred class action intent from language referring to "any dispute." The court further rejected any argument that the absence of language prohibiting class action arbitration can be used to infer class action intent. In both regards, the Fifth Circuit based its opinion squarely on the Supreme Court's decision in Stolt-Nielsen.
You can't explain the different outcomes in Reed and Sutter by distinguishing them on the facts. The two courts clearly wanted to adopt very different views of Stolt-Nielsen. Other Circuits have addressed the issue as well. See, e.g., Jock v. Sterling Jewelers, 646 F.3d. 113 (2nd Cir. 2011). Drafters of arbitration clauses and those choosing their arbitration venue should act accordingly.
From the CMP Resolution Blog of John Crawley, Lesley Allport and Katherine Graham.Business in the Community’s challenging and inspiring report ‘Aspiration and Frustration’ opens with a reminder how resistant racism...
By John CrawleySince the 2005 downturn in the U.S. housing market, many have watched and been alarmed by the loss of value in their real property, but what about the value of ...
By Charles HillDisputing Blog by Karl Bayer, Beth Graham, Victoria VanBuren, and Holly HayesA federal judge in California has reportedly ordered a consumer privacy dispute that was filed against technology giant Google...
By Beth Graham