September 29, 2022

Volume XII, Number 272

Advertisement

September 29, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 28, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 27, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

Litigation Minute: No Relief from Judges in Mass Arbitration Challenges

What You Need to Know in A Minute or Less

While the mass arbitration tactic has caused much consternation for defendants, the development of new rules and procedures to blunt the force of this tactic has frustrated plaintiffs’ attorneys. Both sides have turned to the courts for relief. However, to date, courts have been reluctant to provide an escape from the mass arbitration trap for defendants—and have refused to second-guess new arbitration procedures designed to address mass arbitration. 

Defendants, faced with multimillion-dollar invoices for filing fees from arbitral institutions, have often refused to pay, leading plaintiffs’ attorneys to turn to the courts to compel arbitration and/or the payment of the fees. In some cases, courts have considered successive motions to compel arbitration—first by defendants seeking to avoid a class action, then by plaintiffs seeking to force the payment of mass arbitration fees. Both motions are typically granted.

An Illustrative Example: The Postmates Class Actions

The dispute between Postmates and its couriers is an illustrative example. After putative class actions against Postmates were dismissed in favor of individual arbitration, plaintiffs’ counsel served Postmates with over 10,000 virtually identical arbitration demands, triggering a multimillion-dollar bill from the American Arbitration Association (AAA). 

Rather than pay the extortionate amount, Postmates sued the individual couriers, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Postmates argued that the mass arbitration claims were effectively the same as filing a class arbitration and, thus, violated the parties’ agreements and the Federal Arbitration Act. The court was unsympathetic, dismissing Postmates’ suit. Shortly after, California enacted a statute1 penalizing companies that refuse to pay arbitration fees by imposing sanctions or even contempt charges. Postmates challenged the law, which was upheld by a district court in 2021. 

Defendants' Suits Against Arbitration Providers

Some defendants faced with mass arbitration fees have even sued the AAA, but with little success. For example, Uber, facing US$91 million in fees due, sought to enjoin the AAA from issuing additional invoices. A New York court refused to issue an injunction, and the appellate court affirmed the decision. 

Plaintiffs' Response

Plaintiffs, for their part, have turned to courts to attack new mass arbitration procedures (discussed last week), arguing these procedures are unconscionable due to their development in concert with defendants’ attorneys. 

In suits involving challenges to the new procedures developed by the International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution (CPR) and New Era ADR, the courts allowed discovery into the development of the mass arbitration procedures. Ultimately, the CPR procedures were approved, with the court noting the procedures do not provide either party with any substantive advantage. The challenge to New Era’s procedures remains pending at the time of publication.

Lessons Learned

In cases of litigation over mass arbitration issues, the courts are unlikely to come to the aid of either party complaining about mass arbitration filings being processed according to the rules of an arbitral institution. Therefore, advance planning is critical to effectively deal with mass arbitrations. 

These strategies will be discussed in the final article in our series next week.


FOOTNOTES

(Cal. S.B.707, Ch. 870 (2019-20))

Copyright 2022 K & L GatesNational Law Review, Volume XII, Number 263
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Abram I. Moore Partner K&L Gates
Partner

Abe Moore serves as a practice group coordinator for the firm’s Complex Commercial Litigation and Disputes group. An experienced lead counsel in both trials and arbitrations, he finds the best solution for his clients’ business disputes, while always considering their particular business objectives. When that solution is trial or arbitration, he is a dedicated and creative advocate for his clients. 

Abe’s practice spans a wide array of complex disputes, including the defense of alleged discrimination claims, all manner of breach of contract...

312-781-6010
Victoria Oguntoye Lawyer Dallas Office K and L Gates LLP Law Firm
Associate

Victoria Oguntoye focuses her practice on defending business entities in complex commercial disputes in state and federal trial and appellate courts. She has represented financial institutions, technology companies, international fast food companies, land developers, departmental stores, and governmental boards. She was recognized as a Super Lawyers Rising Star from 2017 through 2020 - a recognition that only 2.5% of her peers receive.

Victoria has defended and prosecuted a wide variety of commercial, class action, bankruptcy, land use, consumer protection, eminent domain, false...

214-939-5716
Caroline H. Boone Commercial Litigation Attorney K&L Gates
Associate

Caroline H. Boone is an associate at the firm’s Dallas office. She is a member of the commercial disputes practice group, with a focus in complex commercial litigation.

Caroline has experience in oil and gas securities fraud, premises liability cases, and commercial cases relating to breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and asset conversion. Ms. Boone also has experience at the trial stage of litigation, where she has drafted dispositive motions in federal and state court.

Caroline served as a summer associate at the firm where she performed legal research, drafted memoranda, and...

214-939-5660
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement